Culpability of the Flotilla Organizers in War Crimes
In "Charge the War Criminals" in American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/charge_the_real_war_criminals.html), Joel B. Pollak makes some important points.
First off,
Israel acted within international law. It may enforce international sanctions when Hamas continues to import weapons for use against civilians. It may board ships in international waters if they refuse to stop. Its soldiers may fire if met with deadly force.
And, though Pollak chose not to start there, Israel is perfectly within its rights to blockade a port owned by a Power which is actively bombarding Israel. Any other country, subject to that sort of treatment, would do the same, or more: most would end the harassment by marching in and taking over the place. Israel is, if anything, behaving with considerable forbearance by only blockading, and by allowing in lots of categories of humanitarian supplies.
There were war crimes committed last Monday, however: They were committed by those who organized and sponsored the flotilla itself. International law forbids using civilians to achieve a military purpose. It prohibits using civilians as human shields. It outlaws launching an attack when it is clear that doing so will cause excessive civilian casualties. And it denies protected status to civilians who choose to become combatants.
Precisely. And the reason I choose now to mention this obvious fact is that it seems not to be so obvious to the mainstream media and much of the international community. When one uses civilians to fight, it is not one's enemy who is thus committing a war crime in the ensuing carnage -- it is oneself.
It is likely, given that five of the six ships yielded to Israeli forces, that at least some of the civilians did not intend to start a fight. They may have believed their mission was truly a humanitarian one, with a strong political message. The organizers used these civilians as human shields, whose presence would either deter Israel or embarrass it. And they knowingly placed these civilians at risk when they attacked the boarding party.
Yep. Fortunately, the IDF was professional and humane enough to, for the most part, only inflict casualties on those actually attacking their troops. The armed forces of most countries, particularly in the Mideast, would have simply sprayed the Mavi Marmara with automatic weapons fire, or even sunk her, in response to such a provocation.
Some of the civilians knew very well their purpose was a military one. That is certainly true of the passengers who brought weapons on board and attacked the Israeli soldiers. It is also true of those who joined the flotilla to break the blockade rather than to deliver aid. Those passengers -- some of whom have ties to terrorist groups -- became illegal combatants who broke international law by disguising themselves among civilians.
Unfortunately, Israel seems to be releasing all the prisoners from the Mavi Marmara, and is thus missing a golden opportunity to highlight this violation of international law by bringing the perpetrators to trial.
The question is why no one -- not the U.S., not even Israel -- has accused the organizers and patrons of the flotilla of war crimes. Perhaps there is little chance such charges would be taken up by the U.N. Security Council, which rushed into action against Israel, though it still has not condemned North Korea for killing 46 South Korean sailors in an unprovoked attack at sea last month. Yet the case is very strong, and it ought to be made.
I agree. It is a shame that Israel is not doing so.
However, it does seem fairly obvious that the U.N. would fail to act in any meaningful manner. The U.N. is clearly a spent moral force, increasingly irrelevant to issues of international law. This process has been accelerated by the Obama Administration, which hasn't been even trying to keep them honest, but ultimately there's only so much America could do to save the U.N. anyway. The rot goes deep in their system.
Addressing the war crimes committed by the Gaza flotilla and its supporters would put them on the defensive and shift the debate. It would also restore the critical distinction between soldier and civilian that world leaders have labored for more than a century to enforce, and which terrorists are determined to destroy. For the good of the U.S., Israel, and the entire free world, we must point accusations of war crimes where they belong.
Sadly, absent American support it's unlikely that Netanyahu would get very far in such an offensive. And, given the complicity of certain Friends of Obama in helping to organize the flotilla (http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2009/12/31/obama-funder-jodie-evans-provokes-crisis-in-egypt-over-hamas-aid-event-obama-pals-ayers-and-dohrn-in-cairo-with-code-pink/), American support would be lacking for the obvious reason that the evidence would lead to the very person who would have to provide such support.
But still, I think it should be tried. There's little downside to the attempt.
First off,
Israel acted within international law. It may enforce international sanctions when Hamas continues to import weapons for use against civilians. It may board ships in international waters if they refuse to stop. Its soldiers may fire if met with deadly force.
And, though Pollak chose not to start there, Israel is perfectly within its rights to blockade a port owned by a Power which is actively bombarding Israel. Any other country, subject to that sort of treatment, would do the same, or more: most would end the harassment by marching in and taking over the place. Israel is, if anything, behaving with considerable forbearance by only blockading, and by allowing in lots of categories of humanitarian supplies.
There were war crimes committed last Monday, however: They were committed by those who organized and sponsored the flotilla itself. International law forbids using civilians to achieve a military purpose. It prohibits using civilians as human shields. It outlaws launching an attack when it is clear that doing so will cause excessive civilian casualties. And it denies protected status to civilians who choose to become combatants.
Precisely. And the reason I choose now to mention this obvious fact is that it seems not to be so obvious to the mainstream media and much of the international community. When one uses civilians to fight, it is not one's enemy who is thus committing a war crime in the ensuing carnage -- it is oneself.
It is likely, given that five of the six ships yielded to Israeli forces, that at least some of the civilians did not intend to start a fight. They may have believed their mission was truly a humanitarian one, with a strong political message. The organizers used these civilians as human shields, whose presence would either deter Israel or embarrass it. And they knowingly placed these civilians at risk when they attacked the boarding party.
Yep. Fortunately, the IDF was professional and humane enough to, for the most part, only inflict casualties on those actually attacking their troops. The armed forces of most countries, particularly in the Mideast, would have simply sprayed the Mavi Marmara with automatic weapons fire, or even sunk her, in response to such a provocation.
Some of the civilians knew very well their purpose was a military one. That is certainly true of the passengers who brought weapons on board and attacked the Israeli soldiers. It is also true of those who joined the flotilla to break the blockade rather than to deliver aid. Those passengers -- some of whom have ties to terrorist groups -- became illegal combatants who broke international law by disguising themselves among civilians.
Unfortunately, Israel seems to be releasing all the prisoners from the Mavi Marmara, and is thus missing a golden opportunity to highlight this violation of international law by bringing the perpetrators to trial.
The question is why no one -- not the U.S., not even Israel -- has accused the organizers and patrons of the flotilla of war crimes. Perhaps there is little chance such charges would be taken up by the U.N. Security Council, which rushed into action against Israel, though it still has not condemned North Korea for killing 46 South Korean sailors in an unprovoked attack at sea last month. Yet the case is very strong, and it ought to be made.
I agree. It is a shame that Israel is not doing so.
However, it does seem fairly obvious that the U.N. would fail to act in any meaningful manner. The U.N. is clearly a spent moral force, increasingly irrelevant to issues of international law. This process has been accelerated by the Obama Administration, which hasn't been even trying to keep them honest, but ultimately there's only so much America could do to save the U.N. anyway. The rot goes deep in their system.
Addressing the war crimes committed by the Gaza flotilla and its supporters would put them on the defensive and shift the debate. It would also restore the critical distinction between soldier and civilian that world leaders have labored for more than a century to enforce, and which terrorists are determined to destroy. For the good of the U.S., Israel, and the entire free world, we must point accusations of war crimes where they belong.
Sadly, absent American support it's unlikely that Netanyahu would get very far in such an offensive. And, given the complicity of certain Friends of Obama in helping to organize the flotilla (http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2009/12/31/obama-funder-jodie-evans-provokes-crisis-in-egypt-over-hamas-aid-event-obama-pals-ayers-and-dohrn-in-cairo-with-code-pink/), American support would be lacking for the obvious reason that the evidence would lead to the very person who would have to provide such support.
But still, I think it should be tried. There's little downside to the attempt.