Barney Frank calls for probe of Gaza raid

[Jefferson23]

Source: BostonHerald.com

By Hillary Chabot and Marie Szaniszlo
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - Updated 4h ago



U.S. Rep. Barney Frank had harsh words yesterday for the Israeli Navy after a bloody raid on a pro-Palestinian flotilla outside of Gaza, describing nine activists killed in the conflict as “innocent” and calling for an independent inquiry into the showdown.

Frank, in a wide-ranging interview with the Herald, went on to say that “as a Jew,” Israeli treatment of Arabs around some of the West Bank settlements “makes me ashamed that there would be Jews that would engage in that kind of victimization of a minority.”

The comments rankled some local Jewish leaders, who said activists on the largest vessel of the six-ship-flotilla sparked the deadly confrontation by attacking Israeli Naval commandos as they rappelled onto the ship.


They weren’t innocent at all, it’s pretty clear,” said Nancy K. Kaufman, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council in Boston. “There’s something called self-defense and (Israeli officials) have a right to use it. As usual, everyone’s jumping on Israel and blaming Israel."

Read more: http://bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20100602barney_frank_calls_for_probe_of_gaza_raid/srvc=home&position=also

---

snip* "Frank called for a “genuinely impartial” inquiry, while local Jewish leaders questioned whether any international panel will be impartial toward Israel."

[Jefferson23]

1. The Legal Position on the Israeli Attack

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.


Posted by craig on May 31, 2010 5:30 PM in the category Palestine

Craig Murray is a human rights activist, writer,
former British Ambassador, and an Honorary Research
Fellow at the University of Lancaster School of Law.


http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit.html

[Catherina]

5. At last. A little good news for the day. Go Barney! n/t

[pberq]

6. excellent - thanks!

[Jefferson23]

9. You're welcome, you might be interested in this too, posted by Jonathan Turley on the legal issues:

snip*

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, is viewed as customary international law and limits such claimed acts of self-defense to proportional acts:

3. The exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations is subject to the conditions and limitations laid down in the Charter, and arising from general international law, including in particular the principles of necessity and proportionality.

4. The principles of necessity and proportionality apply equally to armed conflict at sea and require that the conduct of hostilities by a State should not exceed the degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited by the law of armed conflict, required to repel an armed attack against it and to restore its security.

Arguments that these searches were acts of self-defense are undermined by Israeli officials tying the blockade to the Hamas election as opposed to gun running. There is no question that Hamas is a legitimate concern for Israel and that Israel has a legitimate interest in ending the attacks on its borders. However, international law requires proportionality and protects foreign flagged vessels in international waters. To the extent that these searches are viewed as collective punishment, they would be viewed widely as an international violation.

While Israel has said that the ships can land in Israel for inspection and transfer to Gaza, international groups charge that the government holds on to the supplies and slows supplies to a trickle to punish Gazans for their support of Hamas. The World Health Organization has charged that Israel is stopping medical supplies and needed machines, like x-ray machines, from entering Gaza, here.

Prominent Jewish figures have also joined in condemning the blockade, here.

One country likely to face increased pressure is Egypt which under U.S. and Israeli pressure has closed its border to these goods passing through to Gaza. With the ongoing scandal over Israel’s assassination in Dubai in violation of the laws of various allies (here), this latest incident has already sparked massive protests around the world.

UPDATE: As expected, Egypt has opened its border to goods in response to the raid, here.

For the full story, click here and here.

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/06/01/gaza-raid-triggers-international-outcry-and-question-of-international-law/

edited to fix link.

[Jefferson23]

12. More on the subject: Israel's flotilla raid revives questions of international law

By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 1, 2010; 5:57 PM



UNITED NATIONS -- In the two days following its commando raid on an aid flotilla to the Gaza Strip, Israel has been accused by Turkey and several other governments of behaving like an outlaw state, and engaging in acts of piracy and banditry on the high seas.

But has Israel broken any laws?

International law experts differ over the legality of the Israel action, with some asserting that the raid constituted a clear cut violation of the Law of the Sea, while others maintain that Israel can board foreign vessels in international waters as part of a naval blockade in a time of armed conflict. But scholars on both sides of the debate agree that Israel is required by law to respond with the proportional use of force in the face of violent resistance.

The debate has drawn attention to a three-year-long blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt, which has sharply restricted the import of construction materials and other necessities into Gaza. Israel has come under intensive international pressure, including from the United States, to ease the blockade to allow greater flow of goods into Gaza.

Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law is among those who believes the raid was illegal. "That's what freedom of the seas are all about. This is very clear, for a change. I know a lot of prominent Israeli attorneys and I'd be flabbergasted if any of them disagreed with me on this," he said.

But others see the incident differently.

"The Israeli blockade itself against Gaza itself is not illegal, and it's okay for Israeli ships to operate in international waters to enforce it," said Allen Weiner, former State Department lawyer and legal counselor at the American Embassy in the Hague, and now a professor at Stanford Law School. Beyond that, he said, Israel has a legal obligation to allow humanitarian goods into Gaza and to exercise proportionality in the use of force.

Israel maintains that it was clearly within its rights to stop the aid flotilla, saying any state has the right to blockade another state in the midst of an armed conflict.

"We were acting totally within our legal rights. The international law is very clear on this issue," said Mark Regev, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. "If you have a declared blockade, publicly declared, legally declared, publicized as international law requires, and someone is trying to break that blockade and though you have warned them . . . you are entitled to intercept even on the high seas, even in international waters."

Regev cited a provision in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, which states that merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral states outside neutral waters can be intercepted 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."

But D'Amato said the document applies to a situation in which the laws of war between states are in force. He said the laws of war do not apply in the conflict between Israel and Hamas, which isn't even a state. He said the law of the Geneva Conventions would apply.

Human rights organizations, governments and U.N. officials have criticized Israel's enforcement of the blockade as cruel, if not necessarily illegal.

The influential rights advocacy group Human Rights Watch says that Israel is within its right to "control the content and delivery of humanitarian aid, such as to ensure that consignments do not include weapons." But the group said "Israel's continuing blockade of the Gaza Strip, a measure that is depriving its population of food, fuel, and basic services, constitutes a form of collective punishment in violation of article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Pro-Palestinian advocates have portrayed Israel's activities as illegal, comparing them to President George W. Bush's preemption doctrine. "Israel is now claiming a new international law, invented just for this purpose: the preventive 'right' to capture any naval vessel in international waters if the ship was about to violate a blockade," Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. "That one just about matches George Bush's claim of a preventive 'right' to attack Iraq in 2003 because Baghdad might someday create weapons the U.S. might not like and might use them to threaten some country the U.S. does like."

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that Israel remains in defiance of U.N. resolutions requiring it to end the blockage. He cited Security Council Resolution 1860, which "calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment."

But the resolution also "welcomes the initiatives aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors and other mechanism for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid." And Israel maintains that it has been faithfully implementing the resolution by establishing border crossing routes for the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

To resolve the crisis, Davutoglu said Israel must make a "clear and formal apology," accept an independent investigation, release all passengers immediately, return the bodies of all dead passengers and lift what he called the "siege of Gaza." If these demands are not quickly met, he said that Turkey will demand further action from the U.N. Security Council.

He added that Turkey will also bring the matter before NATO. "Citizens of member states were attacked by a country that was not a member of NATO," he said. "We think that should be discussed in NATO."

Staff writer Janine Zacharia in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/01/AR2010060102934_pf.html

[daleo]

25. That seems well reasoned. n/t

[Jefferson23]

33. I thought so too, I'm sure we'll hear more opinions in the weeks to come, but

this one seemed to carry substantial credibility.

[Wizard777]

2. Go Barney!

[Hell Hath No Fury]

3. Thank you Barney!

He gets it, and I appreciate that.

[peacetalksforall]

4. Don't the stories so far indicate that this was a shock attack. Did the military forget their

loud speakers, their megaphones? Helicopters appear, boats appear, armed men come down on a rope out of the sky?

WHAT THE Hxxx DID Netanyahu/IDF EXPECT TO HAPPEN?

Netanyahu and Barak - have to go, let them devote their time to preparing their defense.

Who has the intelligence to take over?

It's also time for people everywhere to start questioning the right of the US and Europe to do what they are doing in the Middle East.

How do we protest Israel when we don't even protest ourselves?

[jody]

7. Probes are words for "do nothing". UN should blockade Israel just as Israel blockades Gaza. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

8. "As usual, everyone’s jumping on Israel and blaming Israel." Maybe she can produce examples of

Mr Frank's previously "jumping on and blaming Israel".

[CanonRay]

10. Why does everything have to be OUR business?

Can we just stay out of this one? Don't we have enough problems already? I'm not taking a position on the Israeli raid, but let somebody else solve all the world's problems for a change.

[JoeyT]

14. Well because the only thing that lets Israel keep doing shit like this

is the support of the US.
I agree, we should pull our support and stay out of it. Let them finish whatever fights they pick on their own.

[Pavulon]

21. Actually they wiped the floor thrice with their neighbors BEFORE we ever gave

them a dime. Our support in 73 was pretty minimal.

[JackRiddler]

27. In 1973 US forces intervened in a direct support function to allow Israel to prevail.

The US helped save Israel then and it was hours away from engaging in the hostilities.

So you picked just about the most wrong example imaginable.

Israel original relied as much on its alliance with UK and France as on support from the US. Your cavalier language about "mopping up the floor" with its foes disguises aggressions like the 1956 attack on Egypt, launched at the behest of France and UK who wanted a pretext to seize the Suez Canal and attack Nasser.

Here's a passage from the Congressional Research Service.
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL33222_20060105.pdf


1948-1970
U.S. government assistance to Israel began in 1949 with a $100 million Export-
Import Bank Loan.1 For the next two decades, U.S. aid to Israel was modest and was
far less than in later years.2 Although the United States provided moderate amounts
of economic aid (mostly loans), Israel’s main early patron was France, which
provided Israel with advanced military equipment and technology.3 In 1962, Israel
purchased its first advanced weapons system from the United States (Hawk
antiaircraft missiles).4 In 1968, a year after Israel’s victory in the Six Day War in
June 1967, the Johnson Administration, with strong support from Congress,
approved the sale of Phantom aircraft to Israel, establishing the precedent for U.S.
support for Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors.5
1970-Present
Large-scale U.S. assistance for Israel increased considerably after a series of
Arab-Israeli wars created a sense among many Americans that Israel was continually
under siege.6 Consequently, Congress, supported by broad U.S. public opinion,
committed to strengthening Israel’s military and economy through large increases in
foreign aid. From 1966 through 1970, average aid per year increased to about $102
million and military loans increased to about 47% of the total. In 1971, the United
States provided Israel with military loans of $545 million, up from $30 million in
1970. Also in 1971, Congress first designated a specific amount of aid for Israel in
legislation (an “earmark”). Economic assistance changed from project aid, such as
support for agricultural development work, to a Commodity Import Program (CIP)
for the purchase of U.S. goods.7 In effect, the United States stepped in to fill the role that France had relinquished after French President Charles de Gaulle refused to
supply Israel with military hardware to protest its preemptive launch of the Six Day
War in June 1967. Israel became the largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance in
1974. From 1971 to the present, U.S. aid to Israel has averaged over $2.6 billion per
year, two-thirds of which has been military assistance.

Thus the US picked up aid to Israel after 1967 and Israel became the primary foreign recipient of US aid starting in 1976. (Israel still is, except for Iraq, if measures involved in an occupation are to be called "aid.") Egypt became the No. 2 recipient after the Camp David accords, as a reward for making peace with Israel. That pays off for Israel in such measures as the Egyptian participation in the starving of Gaza.

[EFerrari]

31. A lot of our "aid" is money to pay for population control.

Look at all the money we give in "aid" to Colombia and Peru.

[Malikshah]

28. Please read Avi Shlaim's Iron Wall and/or Charles Smith's

A-I Conflict with documents...

A modicum of research will reveal that while on the surface your statement appears valid, blow on the veneer of "truth" and one will see that the argument is
as weak as water.

Where were the arms for the first A-I war from?
Who went back and forth for a green light from Johnson?
USS Liberty???

There is so very much that can and has been done on this subject.

To go online and spout tired talking points does a disservice to intelligent discussion of the topic.

[wuushew]

29. 22,325 tons of supplies is minimal?

Operation Nickel Grass was an overt strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 14 and November 14, 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

Do you think the 73 oil embargo happened by magic?

[JackRiddler]

26. Absolutely right. This is why the US must immediately stop its $3 billion in aid to Israel.

Because, as you say, it's not our business to support them.

[Carolina]

35. It is our business and our problem because our AIPAC

controlled Congress gives Israel $3 billion/year in money and weapons; and our gov't officials are continuously mute when Israel violates UN resolutions. Israel is the root cause of why we are hated in the Middle East !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jefferson23]

37. It's Not Either / Or

* Although there is no question the situation has become even worse since he wrote this in 2006, OCL, and now the flotilla deaths, but the
relevance of the relationship and roles played by the participants is layed out clearly here.

The Israel Lobby

05.01.2006
By Norman G. Finkelstein

In the current fractious debate over the role of the Israel Lobby in the formulation and execution of US policies in the Middle East, the "either-or" framework -- giving primacy to either the Israel Lobby or to U.S. strategic interests -- isn't, in my opinion, very useful.

Apart from the Israel-Palestine conflict, fundamental U.S. policy in the Middle East hasn't been affected by the Lobby. For different reasons, both U.S. and Israeli elites have always believed that the Arabs need to be kept subordinate. However, once the U.S. solidified its alliance with Israel after June 1967, it began to look at Israelis, and Israelis projected themselves, as experts on the "Arab mind." Accordingly, the alliance with Israel has abetted the most truculent U.S. policies, Israelis believing that "Arabs only understand the language of force" and every few years this or that Arab country needs to be smashed up. The spectrum of U.S. policy differences might be narrow, but in terms of impact on the real lives of real people in the Arab world these differences are probably meaningful, the Israeli influence making things worse.

The claim that Israel has become a liability for U.S. "national" interests in the Middle East misses the bigger picture. Sometimes what's most obvious escapes the eye. Israel is the only stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region. Every other country the U.S. relies on might, for all anyone knows, fall out of U.S. control tomorrow. The U.S. discovered this to its horror in 1979, after immense investment in the Shah. On the other hand, Israel was a creation of the West; it's in every respect, culturally, politically, economically in thrall to the West, notably the U.S. This is true not just at the level of a corrupt leadership, as elsewhere in the Middle East but, what's most important, at the popular level. Israel's pro-American orientation exists not just among Israeli elites but also among the whole population. Come what may in Israel, it's inconceivable that this fundamental orientation will change. Combined with its overwhelming military power, this makes Israel a unique and irreplaceable American asset in the Middle East.

In this regard, it's useful to recall the rationale behind British support for Zionism. Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann once asked a British official why the British continued to support Zionism despite Arab opposition. Didn't it make more sense for them to keep Palestine but drop support for Zionism? "Although such an attitude may afford a temporary relief and may quiet Arabs for a short time," the official replied, "it will certainly not settle the question as the Arabs don't want the British in Palestine, and after having their way with the Jews, they would attack the British position, as the Moslems are doing in Mesopotamia, Egypt and India." Another British official judged retrospectively that, however much Arab resentment it provoked, British support for Zionism was prudent policy, for it established in the midst of an "uncertain Arab world a... well-to-do educated, modern community, ultimately bound to be dependent on the British Empire." Were it even possible, the British had little interest in promoting real Jewish-Arab cooperation because it would inevitably lessen this dependence. Similarly, the U.S. doesn't want an Israel truly at peace with the Arabs, for such an Israel could loosen its bonds of dependence on the U.S., making it a less reliable proxy. This is one reason why the claim that Jewish elites are "pro"-Israel makes little sense. They are "pro" an Israel that is useful to the U.S. and, therefore, useful to them. What use would a Paul Wolfowitz have of an Israel living peacefully with its Arab neighbors and less willing to do the U.S.'s bidding?

The historical record strongly suggests that neither Jewish neo-conservatives in particular nor mainstream Jewish intellectuals generally have a primary allegiance to Israel, in fact, any allegiance to Israel. Mainstream Jewish intellectuals became "pro"-Israel after the June 1967 war when Israel became the U.S.'s strategic asset in the Middle East, i.e., when it was safe and reaped benefits. To credit them with ideological conviction is, in my opinion, very naive. They're no more committed to Zionism than the neo-conservatives among them were once committed to Trotskyism; their only ism is opportunism. As psychological types, these newly minted Lovers of Zion most resemble the Jewish police in the Warsaw ghetto. "Each day, to save his own skin, every Jewish policeman brought seven sacrificial lives to the extermination altar," a leader of the Resistance ruefully recalled. "There were policemen who offered their own aged parents, with the excuse that they would die soon anyhow." Jewish neo-conservatives watch over the U.S. "national" interest, which is the source of their power and privilege, and in the Middle East it happens that this "national" interest largely coincides with Israel's "national" interest. If ever these interests clashed, who can doubt that, to save their own skins, they'll do exactly what they're ordered to do, with gusto?

Unlike elsewhere in the Middle East, U.S. elite policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict would almost certainly not be the same without the Lobby. What does the U.S. gain from the Israeli settlements and occupation? In terms of alienating the Arab world, it's had something to lose. The Lobby probably can't muster sufficient power to jeopardize a fundamental American interest, but it can significantly raise the threshold before U.S. elites are prepared to act i.e., order Israel out of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as the U.S. finally pressured the Indonesians out of Occupied East Timor. Whereas Israel doesn't have many options if the U.S. does finally give the order to pack up, the U.S. won't do so until and unless the Israeli occupation becomes a major liability for it: on account of the Lobby the point at which "until and unless" is reached significantly differs. Without the Lobby and in the face of widespread Arab resentment, the U.S. would perhaps have ordered Israel to end the occupation by now, sparing Palestinians much suffering.

In the current "either-or" debate on whether the Lobby affects U.S. Middle East policy at the elite level, it's been lost on many of the interlocutors that a crucial dimension of this debate should be the extent to which the Lobby stifles free and open public discussion on the subject. For in terms of trying to broaden public discussion here on the Israel-Palestine conflict the Lobby makes a huge and baneful difference. Especially since U.S. elites have no entrenched interest in the Israeli occupation, the mobilization of public opinion can have a real impact on policy-making, which is why the Lobby invests so much energy in suppressing discussion.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=205

[avaistheone1]

11. Good to hear a prominent Jewish American speaking out against this violence

against innocent people.

:kick:

[lumpy]

13. Respect for Barney Fank continues to grow. He is part of

the better part of the human race.

[EFerrari]

30. Yes, he is.

[karynnj]

15. J Street the Liberal Jewish lobbying group put out a good statement Monday

J Street is deeply shocked and saddened by reports that at least 10 civilians have been killed and dozens more wounded (including Israeli soldiers) this morning as Israel intercepted a naval convoy bringing humanitarian supplies and construction materials to the Gaza Strip.

<snip>
This shocking outcome of an effort to bring humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza is in part a consequence of the ongoing, counterproductive Israeli blockade of Gaza. J Street has been and continues to be opposed to the blockade – believing that there are better ways to ensure Israel’s security and to prevent weapons smuggling than a complete closure of the Gaza Strip.

We do not know yet what the impact of today’s incident will be on the just-restarted peace process, on Israel’s relations with the international community, or on the health of Arab-Jewish relations within Israel itself.

We do know, however, that today is one more nail in the coffin for hopes of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully and diplomatically and for preserving Israel’s Jewish and democratic character. We urge President Obama and other international and regional leaders to take today’s terrible news as an opportunity to engage even more forcefully in immediate efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.jstreet.org/blog/?p=1094

[Barack_America]

20. +1

[IndianaGreen]

16. Barney Frank is an Israel hater and an anti-Semite

I just wanted to preempt the inevitable smear of Barney Frank from the Israel Lobby.

:-)

Go Barney!

[Jefferson23]

19. lol n/t

[Ignis]

36. ...

:spray:

[Trillo]

17. I had no idea Barney Frank was Jewish.

Good move, Mr. Frank!

[Scurrilous]

18. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Dawson Leery]

22. k/r

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. now that impresses me...Good on you Barney ...God bless you

I'm sure it is not an easy thing for him to say so publicly

[shirleym]

24. "As usual everyone is jumping on Israel"

because they are guilty of crimes against humanity. Period!

[readmoreoften]

32. Good work, Barney. I'm not usually a fan, but I respect you for this.

+1

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. kick and recommend