The legality of Israel’s attack on Mavi Marmaris
Posted on Wednesday 2 June, 2010
Filed Under Israel
ISRAEL attack on humanitarian aid vessel Mavi Marmaris was ‘perfectly legal, perfectly humane and very responsible’, the country’s ambassador to the US has insisted.
Michael Oren even adds: ‘Israel acted in accord with international law. Any state has the right to protect itself, certainly from a terrorist threat such as Hamas, including on the open seas.’
As I have made clear in the two posts below, this murderous and despicable assault evidences precious little humanity or responsibility. Legality, then, can only be a secondary consideration. But for what it’s worth, let’s consider the point in further detail.
From what specialist lawyers tell me, there is an arguable basis for the action, although as with any legal opinion, other interpretations are possible. However, widespread comparisons to piracy are certainly wide of the mark, as navies by definition cannot commit this crime.
Media interviews have seen Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev cite what he called the San Marino Memorandum in justification. There is no such document.
What everyone assumes he is talking about is the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea. You can read it here.
Compiled in 1994, the San Remo Manual represents a contemporary restatement of international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. It was written under the auspices of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, which is a respected and long-established non-governmental organisation. But the document does not have the force of law itself.
Section 67 (a) provides: ‘Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral states may not be attacked unless 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.’
The conduct of Mavi Marmaris was such that the clause could be read as giving Israel’s move prima facie legitimacy. However, alternative interpretations are possible.
For instance, look at S.42(a), which further states: ‘It is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.’
In any case, the stipulations of the San Remo Manual may not be decisive. As I understand matters, it can only be invoked in the case of armed conflict between states, and Israel refuses to recognise either Palestine as a whole or Gaza separately as a state. The attack will only be legal if the blockade itself is legal.
Piracy is defined by article 101 of part VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This states that piracy consists of ‘any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft’.
As naval ships are not private ships, nothing that they do constitutes piracy in the narrow legal meaning of the term, in any circumstances. But just because Israel has the right to do something, that does not mean that it should go ahead and do it.
As Israeli statesman Abba Eban once famously quipped. the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. But Netanyahu’s mistake is precisely that he never misses an opportunity to conflate legitimate use of force with a brutal display of strength.
<<Go back
Comments
71 Responses to “The legality of Israel’s attack on Mavi Marmaris”
Leave a Reply
12 May 1919 apparently. Before the revolt, although it was in reference to Kurds, I think, or Iraqi tribes at any rate. Although I’ll actually do a little bit of JSTOR research to make sure…
Here’s the relevant Wikipedia article fwiw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_gas_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920#cite_note-0
Are you upset about the use of the word ‘uncivilised’? Remember we are talking nearly 100 years ago, and no-one would claim that Winston Churchill was a friend of workers. He authorised troops to fire on British workers in a miners’ strike in 1919, so he was hardly a man who worried about questions of socialist justice. Interestingly, the article you linked to does not record that gas was ever used against the Kurds, it was used against the Ottomans during the First World War though in the Second Battle of Gaza. Were the soldiers eyeless in Gaza? Anyway, I was thinking about it. I hate to sound as if I am defending Churchill in any way, but in the quote you give he does point out that gases could be used that inconvenience people, not actually poison them. The article then goes on to state that stocks of teargas were available in Iraq during the period in question (1920) but not poison gas and the teargas was not used although permission had been granted for its use.
Lobby Ludd. I said socialists. I did not mention Gorgeous or Corbyn. Are they socialists!
Er, I’m not upset about anything. Also it’s a bit of a stretch to assume that Churchill was talking about tear gas there.
“It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.”
I don’t know what the range of gasses available at the time was, but it sounds like he was advocating the use of one that would certainly “poison” by any definition, the victims, but result in a relatively low death toll.
From that article:
Another historian, Lawrence James, says “By September the local commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, was beginning to get the upper hand, although he was still desperate enough to clamour for large supplies of poison gas. It was not needed, for air power had given his forces the edge whenever the going got tough”.[4] On whether gas was used he writes that: “RAF Officers asked Churchill… for use of poison gas. He agreed but it was not used”[5]
Mein Gott SueR. You are talking Gas now. You will end up doon ra pub eventually with all the latter day socialists that were conned by their gift of the gab heroes that are now raking in the dosh from their rented properties and media deals not to mention seats in the Lords. But jimmy glesga is sympathetic to your plight. Old Winston had the measure of socialists. Just give them a few bob and shut them up. It works.
Richard von Q. Your quotes from history are invaluable to the future behaviour of the human race. I am sure they will be taken on board. I mean nobody really wants to gas anyone do they.
“I mean nobody really wants to gas anyone do they.”
Apart from your hero Churchill- renowned Socialist btw.
It really irritates me when fake-left poseurs and national chauvinists like Jimmy praise Conservative party godheads whilst at the same time castigating a Provisional movement that contained such principled socialist men as Bobby Sands and Patrick Magee.
A. Pretend Socialist. Sands starved himself to death voluntarily. To his credit he did not kill anyone else for his stupid cause. Well maybe. Did he murder anyone prior to this! Who is Magee!! Maybe he starved himself also. Who cares. At least the Britsh did not intervene. A man has to do what a man has to do. The families have to live with this stupidity whilst the young sensible people of Ireland get on with their lives.Peacefully.
Oh and Pretend Socialist. You just have to look at the IRA mob that are taking the British money, they have forgotten about Sands and Co. Poor Bobby he had a life and gave it away to the idiots. Just like the Islamists.
Richard von Q: If I say -p, then q that means that if there is not a state of p, then q exists. Please analyse Churchill’s statement, he says quite clearly, ‘it is not necessary to use the most dangerous gases, there are other less lethal gases.’. That is not to deny that the more lethal gases were not held in reserve, but we know they were not used. The fact they were not used is nothing to do with morality, more to do with superior firepower from a technological civilization. Weasel words from you. Mere semantics. And, Jimmy, I am sorry to bring up the question of gas but it wasn’t me who started it. No doubt a deliberate ploy on the part of certain people.
SueR. As the Irish would say ‘answer the fookin question’. Do not change the subject. Anyway it was a German officer that started the ball rolling with the gas during WWI. He was a real scumbag anti semetic. Did not even attend his wife’s funeral. Some of those Saddam supporting socialists would probably admire him.
“If I say -p, then q that means that if there is not a state of p, then q exists. Please analyse Churchill’s statement, he says quite clearly, ‘it is not necessary to use the most dangerous gases, there are other less lethal gases.’. ”
I think i have a basic grasp of logic but please make your logical analysis of the statement explicit since I don’t quite see how the statement fits into the if not p then q framework. I’m not being argumentative here, I just want to clarify what you mean so I can respond.
Richard von Q. Lets assume Churchill was really a Gas Man and ordered its use. Do you think he should be stripped of his title as Britains greatest Brit.
James Glasgow:
“Richard von Q. Lets assume Churchill was really a Gas Man and ordered its use. Do you think he should be stripped of his title as Britains greatest Brit.”
This ‘title’ was the result of a BBC poll conducted around the programme ’100 Greatest Britons’, broadcast in 2002. (Number three was the Blessed Lady Di.) Why do such fripperies matter to you, James? Do you think they say something about UK politics, rather than the kind of people who ‘vote’ on trivial polls?
Lobby Doser. Thanks for having the courtesy of calling me by my first mame. fripperies is a word I may use in future conversations once I have looked it up. Being wurkin class such wurds do not come to mind immediately. I do not recall the lovely minesweeper Diane being third. But old Winston does deserve to be remembered. OK I appreciate if you are a BNP NAZI then Winston was not going to be your pop idle.
“Do you think they say something about UK politics, rather than the kind of people who ‘vote’ on trivial polls?”
Ruling class propaganda and deliberate undermining of democracy by being fast and loose with the facts?
Wasn’t Karl Marx voted the greatest philosopher who ever lived by the Great British public?
If anyone is still interested, Craig Murray asserts that San Remo does not apply.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/why_san_remo_do.html
Also important to realise the Mavi Marmara was reflagged around 20 May to Comoros Islands. This was due to Turkish authorities re-licensing the ship for coastal waters only, when it was sold to private owners (IHH) thus it had no certification for open waters.
Not everyone here has read this yet :
http://www.slate.com/id/2256189/
I was reminded recently that King Abdul-Aziz told Franklin Roosevelt face-to-face in the 1940s that the wronged Jews ought to be awarded a chunk of Germany rather than wronging the Palestinians, who had done them no harm at all.
On reflection, it’s not too late even now.
Assume that all the Jewish Israelis were to be resettled in Germany, France, Britain, Ireland, Belgium and Holland over, say, a five-year period, and that rulers of the 57 countries of the O.I.C. were to be so overcome with joy at this Final Solution of the Palestine Question that they readily accepted to resettle all the Muslims currently residing in Germany, France, Britain, Ireland, Belgium and Holland.
Win – Win for everyone, I’d jolly well say!
“By the way was Modernity on the flotilla, he seems to have gone very quiet as of late?”
Not really, I posted on it last week, been away, and anyway would you even *read* what I posted? Exactly.