Several people have raised the issue with me of whether Israel committed piracy when it intercepted the Free Gaza ship trying to break the siege by delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza. Radhika Sainath has a useful post on the subject over at Electronic Intifada. Sainath:
An act of piracy, as defined by the law of nations, includes illegal acts of violence or detention committed on the high seas or outside the jurisdiction of any state. While today piracy often conjures up ideas of buried treasure, sunken ships and Johnny Depp at his best; olden-day pirates instilled a sense of terror in seafarers traveling in no-man’s zones, outside the protection of any state.
Israel’s commandeering of the Spirit last week shares a lot in common with these traditional acts of piracy: the Spirit’s unarmed passengers traveled on the high seas, vulnerable, uncertain if they would live or die when the Israeli navy surrounded them and took them prisoners. But do Israel’s actions constitute piracy? The answer is: Yes.
Israel committed clear acts of violence and detention against the Spirit’s passengers, acts, which, under the UN Convention on the High Seas, are unlawful. A warship may legitimately board a foreign ship on the high seas in only three circumstances: there is reason to believe the boat was engaged in piracy, the slave trade or the boat — despite its flag — is really of the same nationality as the warship. None of these circumstances apply here.
According to a 1 July press release from the Free Gaza Movement, the Spirit of Humanity was in international waters when the Israeli navy captured it. However, even if the boat was in Gazan waters, the above acts still constitute piracy because Gazan waters are outside the jurisdiction of any state — and certainly outside Israel’s jurisdiction. Jurisdiction, it should be noted, is different from control. While Israel exercises de facto control over Gaza, it has no legal de jure jurisdiction over Gaza.
Furthermore, while piracy has traditionally been defined as a private act, there is no reason why Israel’s seizure of the Spirit, its passengers and its humanitarian cargo should not be considered an act of state or state-sponsored piracy.
I’ll admit, maritime law is far from my area of expertise – any thoughts?
Was under the impression that piracy is legally defined as being committed by sub-state actors, but I’d have to dig up the reference.
No.
Israel is in a state of war with Hamas, mutually declared.
When that state of war shifts to a state of peace, then one might be able to claim piracy.
Words are used very sloppily by the left, for emotional appeal, rather than to convey a legal truth.
“International law”
“Genocide”
Israel didn’t capture Hamas members. It captured free citizens of other countries in international waters.
The comment refers to the legality of the blockade, which is the basis of the accusation of “piracy”.
Its a rhetorical usage, for emotional appeal, not an authoritative analysis of the law.
There is no doubt that the blockade is illegal, declared war or not. The blockade is a collective punishment and targeting of civilians, which is illegal under international law. The ship that was taken was transporting humanitarian aid, not weapons. That makes the taking of the ship also a collective punishment and targeting of civilians, which is illegal under international law. If you can justify this behavior, you are also at the same time, legitimizing Hamas’ firing of rockets into civilian areas. Both acts target civilians. The blockade is a war crime, and this act, as a part of the blockade is part of an ongoing war crime. Piracy is probably not a strong enough word to use.
And according to international law, what Israel is doing to the people of Gaza is definitely genocide.
RTFA Witless:
Israel committed clear acts of violence and detention against the Spirit’s passengers, acts, which, under the UN Convention on the High Seas, are unlawful. A warship may legitimately board a foreign ship on the high seas in only three circumstances: there is reason to believe the boat was engaged in piracy, the slave trade or the boat — despite its flag — is really of the same nationality as the warship. None of these circumstances apply here.
Yes. It was a violation of international law (the UN Convention of the High Seas) and is an act of piracy.
Too bad that all of this is irrelevant since the “Spirit” is not a Hamas ship.
I already went through all this in the old blog: It’s not piracy. It’s an act of war by Israel against Greece (where the ship is registered) and several other nations (where the crewmembers hail from), all of whom, as well as NATO collectively, could now legally strike back at Israel with whatever force they deem necessary to make such attacks stop.
End of story.
Not only was the ship in international waters but Israeli gunboats and warships actively jammed the boat’s navigation systems (GPS, radar) forcing the crew to use traditional navigational methods.
Israel attempted to force the boat into Israeli waters but when they failed, they boarded the boat by force anyway. The crew <a href="link to youtube.com
smuggled out video.
Israel claims its 1995 agreement with the PA allows it to patrol these waters. Israel has broken this agreement as it refuses fishermen to go out to 20nm from Gaza, limiting them to 3nm. (also, Israel seems to have its eyes on Gaza’s gas fields). Also, the patrols are only designed to intercept arms. The Spirit was cleared by Cypriot officials.
Richard Witty, you are really blowing smoke here, and of course you have no clue what you are pontificating about. Even if it did make sense to say that Israel is in a state of war with Hamas, which it does not, Hamas had nothing to do with that boat or the people on it.
Sorry, piracy is a private act. When done under authority of a state, it is not the same thing. Privateers had letters of marque, authorizing them to seize shipping of an enemy country, and it meant the difference between acting honorably, and committing a hanging offense. When a country sends its ships to capture foreign ships on the high seas, it is an act of war, not piracy. Israel is blockading Gaza, not committing piracy. If the US and the International Community don’t like it, there is always war. But don’t confuse state authorized acts with piracy, sort of a seafaring band of robbers and murderers.
So what the Barbary States were doing was not piracy?
David is right– it is not piracy. It is simply good old fashioned state-sponsored aggression. Pirates are non-state actors. Privateers were partially endorsed by particular states by letters of marque, but they are still usual considered non-state actors, unless it can be proved that they were issued letters of marque.
But this was the Israel Navy, which represents the state of Israel. This makes it no less illegal. The problem is that there are no other states that are willing to stand up for their citizens, whose boat was commandeered and whose goods were stolen. In this case, their only recourse would be to go to the Hague, but Israel has never listened to that authority.
Sooner or later, Israel will overreact to one of these boats and kill some people. Then we can only hope that those citizens’ countries will stand up for them rather than ridiculing them. But if Rachel Corrie is any example, it’s a long shot.
If there is an over-reation, will will be provoked.
As for rachel Corrie, she deliberately placed herself in harm’s way. She got what she was begging for. No need to further investigate a deliberate act of “suicide for publicity.”
It wasn’t suicide, she was naive. She mistook Israeli soldiers for human beings. She thought that as an American, they would stop short of murdering her. Do you see the irony here? SHE thought you were better than you are. Now we know she was wrong. And we’ve absolutely had it with you.
You don’t have enough blood to spill to avenge the deaths of those you’ve killed.
Ah, I bet you said the same to all those civil rights workers, black and white, who use
to place themselves in danger at diner counters back in the Jim Crow Era. And they
merely wanted to eat their, not bulldoze away somebody’s home under the pretext
of self-defense. I guess in your consistent opinion those three got what they deserved
when they traveled down south, just begging to put themselves in harm’s way.
Their goods were not stolen. They were sent to the Palestinians, which supposedly was the purpose of the trip.
The goods were not sent to Palestine. They were siezed and never passed on.
Israel already killed 34 U.S. sailors in its attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in international waters, and there was no response.
America killed a bunch of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and there was no response. Friendly fire sucks, but accidents happen.
Yeah and the IDF killed a bunch of Israeli troops in Gaza from friendly fire. No response their either.
“…Israel’s action could be deemed piracy under the definition of the International Maritime Bureau: “The act of boarding any vessel with an intent to commit theft or any other crime, and with an intent or capacity to use force in furtherance of that act”.”
link to smh.com.au
Unbelievable! Terrorism isn’t terrorism when it’s committed by a state just like piracy isn’t piracy when the pirate is a state. This state of affairs is not only profoundly unfair, it’s downright insulting to anyone with an average intelligence. And it’s not only the state of Israel that I’m objecting to here, it’s ALL states, including the USA. That’s one reason why other states won’t step in and say peep. States have a monopoly on violence and theft and they will stick together to defend it, to the last drop of our blood.
Don’t you see it is “the rule of law?” LOL Israel, like every other Hegelian State works under a rubric of rule of law. That is where the law mutates to satisfy any elite group, so that there really is no rule of law – just “a law of rule,” where they become a law in their own right. Unfortunately, whether it was a pirate of old or a modern (for that matter ancient) state, there is no difference. It is similar to no foul simply because you have a uniform on. However, if you study the pirates of old, present day pirates, or poor people in general they all have one thing in common, oppression looked upon as authority, because it flies the colors of ” state,” which has been worse than any organized piracy at sea –
HOIST THE COLORS
People who are honest can tell you for a fact, that the underworld does not hold a candle to the over-world. A thief might steal a possession of someone, but those in power in these states (which are merely a franchise of the elite) steal peoples lives!
Ana,
Willful ignorance is not a pretty sight. State terrorism is well document as in Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbullah and Hamas is officially discussed as state terrorism.
Oh, do you want a modern day example? Here you go –
YOU ARE BEING LIED TO ABOUT PIRATES
Work to change the status of the relationship, from animosity to co-existence, if you want the ports to open.
If “resistance” doesn’t accomplish that (in this case pushing it back decades), commit to something that will work.
So when Hamas ceased all rocket fire last Summer, Israel just further tightened its blockade whilst Ehud Olmert drew up plans for an all-out assault.
Every time the Palestinians give something up, Israel takes more.
The world is sick of Israel’s self proclaimed victim status. President Obama, Ban Ki-Moon, the EU, ICRC, HRW and Amnesty are all shouting ‘stop’. An one state apartheid state is what awaits.
It ceased rocket fire for four months, after 16 years of terror, and without apologizing or defining that its role and methods were permanently changed as a result of tactical AND ethical review.
@Richard Witty
Point of fact Hamas didn’t cease rocket fire, it just reduced it to a lower level. To the people who say “well the rocket fire wasn’t from Hamas”, Hamas “arrested” members of another group who were firing rockets only to release them a few hours later without charges or consequences.
You know what I find really laughable Thom, that the Israelis would think after isolating, refusing to talk to, sanctioning, assassinating, and kidnapping the democratically elected Hamas – that you or anyone else thinks they have the power to cause the splintered factions in the region to stop rocket fire. I mean, give me a break you ignorant cow.
However, what is equally laughable is that a country like Israel that is bequeathed with such monetary support for the international community, and has probably the 4th or 5th most powerful armed forces can’t stop their settlers! Of course, that is because a good portion of the “soldiers” are settlers whose loyalty lies with the ongoing and growing settlements. That is not outdone by the complete support of the entire state apparatus that draws these misfits there, puts them on a welfare diet, and backs all of their aggressive, illegal, and murderous activity.
So, until all of this nonsense stops you have no legitimacy whatsoever, no one can nor should believe your false pleas for “peace.” What is really insulting is that some of your idiots would come here, thinking that you have not completely burst the bonds of credulity with your sanctimonious and equally stupid screeds! So, you twice insult the intelligence of anyone who reads this site.
Thom
Poinbt of fact is that you don;t have any idea about the facts.
Thom July 25, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Hamas did cease rocket fire between July and Novmeber 4th, at which point, Israel violated it.
Israel’s won MFA report cponcluded that Hamas were “very careful” to observe the ceasefire and stifle rockets from militants not under their control. IDF soldeirs shoot Palestinian children all the time, only to be found innocent of all charges if and when they even face charges.
If Baruch Goldstein had survived, he probably would be elected to PM by now.
Interesting how Israel chose Nov. 4, 2008 (U.S. Election Day) to start violating the ceasefire.
Point of fact Thom, is that yoou don;t knwo what the facts are.
Hamas did cease rocket fire, and Israel admit this too. Even if Hamas were to have arrested those not under their contro; who violated the ceasefire, it woudl still be after the fact, so your argument is pathetic.
Of course, we cold use your logic to argue that Baruch Goldstein was acting in concert with the IDF, becasue he wasn’t arrested before carrying out his little massacre.
Resistance is the only thing that has prevented the Palestinians from being already completely ethnically cleansed. Had they not resisted, they would have been wiped out in ’48, ’49. If they give up now, that’s precisely what will happen.
If the Palestinians had not attacked, they would have been living in peace, harmony, and relative luxury in Israel. Since they did, they were turned into pawns by the Arab nations.
Sarah, have you not been paying attention? Militarily, the Palestinians’ “resistance” is a joke. In terms of the ability to stop Israel from wiping them out if Israel chose to do so. they have about as much chance as an individual citizen of Los Angeles has of stopping the LAPD from taking him down if they want to. But a single citizen can harm other citizens, even if he can’t win a “war” with the police.
In the time it took to attack Hamas a few months ago, Israel could have wiped out 99% of the population of Gaza just with conventional weapons. One Palestinian per IDF soldier in Gaza per hour would have done it without even any overtime.
Military versus military in a war, even an all out war of extermination, the Palestinians wouldn’t last a month.
What makes the Palestinians an ongoing threat is that they don’t fight military versus military, they fight military (terrorists) versus civilians and use their own civilians to hide among. Israel has the choice of letting Hamas kill their own civilians or attacking Hamas and accidentally killing the civilians that Hamas hides among.
Hamas is a disease with the civilian population as the body it infects. Killing a disease is easy, killing the disease without killing the patient is a lot harder.
For Israel to wipe out all the Palestinains it would:
a) require IDF ground troops to engage in guerilla warfare against Hamas, which would mean a high body count, which, as we saw in Lebanon, Israel cannot stomach
b) mean that Isrle would drop th efacade about being a civilized and legitimate state, thuse threatnening not only it’s massive annula welfare cheque, but threaten other measures like a broad intenrtational boycott, which would destroy the country.
@Shingo
No, it really wouldn’t require much guerrilla warfare. They could wipe most of them out with a concerted bombing campaign. The rest could be mopped up by using infra-red detectors and killing anything with a human body temperature.
Guerrilla warfare against a stronger enemy only works when the enemy isn’t trying to exterminate the entire population. The stronger enemy hesitates to shoot for fear of killing civilians. The guerrillas can hide simply by hiding their weapons and pretending to be civilians. “We go up to everyone and ask ‘are you the enemy’ and if they say ‘yes’ we shoot them” -Good Morning Viet Nam
Then when the soldiers leave, the guerrilla’s guns come out of hiding.
Those tactics do not apply to a war of extermination. In a war of extermination, the guerrillas can’t hide among civilians because the civilians are all killed too.
It is like fighting cancer (terrorists). Killing cancer is incredibly easy, just kill the patient. The cancer dies too. What is tricky is killing cancer without killing the patient.
BTW, you just torpedoed your ally’s argument. Sarah thinks that the “resistance” is what stops the Israelis from wiping out the Palestinians. It isn’t, as you said, widespread condemnation and boycotts would follow. However, the irony is that the more the Palestinians “resist” the less likely condemnation and sanctions are against Israel if the Israelis kicked them out of Gaza and the West Bank.
BTW, did you ever respond to my pointing out that your “Israeli admits disproportionate force” quote was an Israeli saying “Israel uses disproportionately little force” not “disproportionately large force”?
Thom,
Concerted bombing would require a virtually ulimited suply of semtex plus unlimited access to too everyone in Israel, as well as Israel to lay down it’s weapons and abandon it’s bombs shelters. Youre fantansy has no possible outcome.
Israel has demonstartd that it has no fear of killing civilians. In fat this is the resonwhy the humanb shields argument used by Israel is so weak, because human shileds are only effective if the enemy is dissuaded from killing civlians.
When I last checcked there were no guns that could be concealed that coudl penetrate Isreli tanks or hit F16 fighters 30,000 in the air.
So no, you didn’t torpedo anything. The only thing that stops the Israelis from wiping out the Palestinians is widespread condemnation and the consequences of that. Palestinian resistance doesn’tmatter one way or another because it’s so innefective against the 4th most poweful militry inthe world.
Yes I did respond to your “Israeli admits disproportionate force”. Gillemrman admitted that Israel’s reposnse was disproportionate and resorted to hyperbole to insist that other states would be more recklesss than Israel, which is just a desperate attempt at excusing Israel’s crimes. The fact is that when it came to Gaza, Israel and it’s propagansists stopped even denying they were using disproportionate force, and opeted for the argument that it is incument on the stronger side to use disproportionate force to ensure victory.
Sorry you lost that argument too.
FREEDOM ARRIVES AT THE LEAST LIKELY TIME
The USA entered WW1 under the pretext USA citizens were aboard some of those
German blockade runners the U-boats sunk. I agree Israel committed an act of war
against the USA, Ireland, and the other nations represented on that Gaza relief boat.
Only problem is, Israel Firsters control the USA government. Israelis do what they
want–the model for action was the attack on the USS Liberty back in 1967. It’s been brought up to date by the manipulated vanishing of the AIPAC spy case.
The liberty is long long past.
The US made its decision as to how to regard it, how to respond to it.
When your politics revolves around an incident 42 years ago, they call that a reactionary approach.
Proposals and attentively working forward towards them would be progressive. Angers or any merely punitive approach is reactionary.
It’s only reactionary if the government that committed the act 42 years ago has changed they way it behaves towards those it calls its “allies”. Israel has not, so the attack on the Liberty is entirely relevant today.
The attack on the USS Liberty heralded the acquiescence of the American political establishment to gun Zionism. President Johnson and Secretary McNamara ordered a recall of US Navy aircraft en route to rescue the Liberty, and then tried to sweep it under the carpet. It was the abrupt crystallization of a shift in political culture where Americans leaders came to accept that personal advancement required deference to campaign contributors whose primary concern was political, economic, and military subsidization of a foreign nation whose interests diverge radically from our own. It is hardly irrelevant.
The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy
“When your politics revolves around an incident 42 years ago, they call that a reactionary approach.”
This from a representative of the tasteless filth of israel, who can’t make it through a sentence without invoking the Shoah (or some pogrom from the 8th century, or the phony expulsion from Egypt..etc etc).
Good of you to mention that. It’s indeed interesting to compare the sinking of the RMS Lusitania to the capture of the “Spirit”. The former event, as we know, decisively turned US public opinion against Germany in WW1 and contributed to later US entry into the war.
There are similarities:
- Blockade extending into international waters declared by a belligerent power.
- Attack on a civilian ship carrying US citizens.
There are also differences:
- The scale of events and the loss of life in the Lusitania sinking. But then again, the scale of the war going on back then was an entirely different one as well.
- The Lusitania was a British ship, and Germany was at war with Britain, unlike “Spirit”, which is a neutral vessel.
- The Lusitania did actually carry war materials, unlike the “Spirit”, which only carried humanitarian supplies.
- The British had in fact instituted a legally dubious blockade (of the North Sea) first, and were generally following the same principles as the Germans. Hamas has of course done no such thing, if only for lack of capability.
- Finally, Lusitania was falsely believed to be armed by the German U-Boat commander, while “Spirit” was definitely known to be unarmed and harmless.
So, there are differences, but from a legal perspective they mostly come out in favor of the Germans.
I would like to see a nation with the moral courage to send its own gunboats to escort shipments of aid to Gaza.
I would also like to see what nation throws away morality and helps support the Islamic fascist nation of Hamastan.
Apparently Saxon you do not know what “morality” is, so it is a moot point
I know more than you, but then, so many do that it is rather meaningless.
So abandon yourself and throw the hat in the circle?
I didn’t think so…