[A-List] Specterzine: Why did Israel attack civilians in the Mediterranean?

[james daly]

Why did Israel attack civilians in the Mediterranean?


June 9, 2010

Thierry Meyssan

Israel weighed in advance the consequences of its attack against a 
humanitarian convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip. What were its 
objectives in triggering a world diplomatic crisis, and why did it defy its 
Turkish ally as well as its U.S. protector?

The attack launched by three Israeli Saar missile patrol boats on 31 May 
2010 against the "Freedom" flotilla in international Mediterranean waters 
denotes a headlong rush on the part of Tel Aviv.

The "Freedom" flotilla stems from an initiative by human rights activists 
[1] [2], supported by the Turkish government. Its aim was to take 
humanitarian aid to Gaza and, in so doing, to break the blockade illegally 
enforced by the Israeli army against more than 1.5 million Gazans.

Under international law, the decision to accost a civilian vessel in 
international waters is an "act of war". Legally speaking, Israel's acts 
constitute the appropriation of the vessels and their cargo, the kidnapping 
of the passengers, murder or possibly even assassination, if one accepts the 
reports relayed by Turkish television according to which the commandos were 
in possession of a list of people that had to be eliminated.

This act of war against vessels flying Greek and Turkish flags was carried 
out to reinforce the blockade, which is itself a violation of international 
law.

By choosing the argument of "self defense", the Israeli authorities have 
explicitly claimed sovereignty over international waters up to 69 nautical 
miles off the coast of Palestine, on the pretext that this annexation - 
whether temporary or permanent - is essential for the continuation of the 
blockade, which in turn is necesarry for the security of the State of 
Israel.

By boarding a Turkish ship and killing passengers, Tel Aviv opted for a 
military response to the diplomatic crisis that has pitted it against Ankara 
since January 2009. Israel expects this decision will provoke a crisis 
within the Turkish Army command as well as between the latter and the 
Turkish government. However, it could also lead to a complete break in 
military ties between the two countries, even though Turkey has been Israel's 
closest regional ally for over half a century. Turkish-Israeli joint 
exercises have already been canceled indefinitely. Moreover, this crisis 
could also affect trade relations between the two countries, despite the 
fact that Turkey is a vital partner for the Israeli economy.

However, it was imperative for Tel Aviv to undermine Turkey's credibility at 
a time when Ankara has been moving closer to Syria and Iran with a view to 
constituting a new tripartite regional authority [3]. As a first step, 
Israel had to sanction Ankara for its role in the Tehran protocol 
negotiations on Iran's nuclear industry.

As for Turkey, which had anticipated a forceful Israeli intervention but not 
a lethal one, the time is ripe to fill the role of advocate for the 
Palestinian people, in accordance with the neo-Ottoman doctrine predicated 
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Professor Ahmet Davutoglu. Without 
waiting for Prime Minister Recep Erdogan's return from his current trip to 
Latin America, the Turkish ambassador in Tel Aviv was recalled to Ankara and 
a crisis unit was set up around the Deputy Prime Minister, Bülent Arinç. 
Immediate contact was established with the governments of the 32 countries 
whose nationals were on the convoy. All Turkish diplomatic staff was 
mobilized to brief a maximum number of states and international 
organizations on the situation. During a press conference, Mr. Arinç 
requested the immediate return of the three Turkish vessels and their stolen 
cargo, and in particular the release of the hundreds of kidnapped and 
sequestered Turkish citizens. He chose to describe the attack as an act 
"piracy" (not war) offering the Netanyahu government the opportunity to 
portray the events as a "mistake" rather than a policy decision. In keeping 
with this logic, President Abdullah Gul demanded that the Israeli courts 
should try those responsible for this massacre.

>From Chile, Mr Erdogan stated: "These acts are totally contrary to the 
principles of international law; they are terrorist acts perpetrated by an 
inhuman state. I am speaking to those who endorsed this operation: you 
support bloodshed; we support peace and humanitarian law".

In the afternoon, as a member of NATO, Turkey seized the Atlantic Council. 
If Ankara fails to receive an appropriate response from the Israeli 
government, it could decide to qualify the attack as an act of war and seek 
military aid from member states of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North 
Atlantic Treaty.

The Netanyahu government has urged its citizens to leave Turkey, while 
spontaneous demonstrations before Israeli consulates have been multiplying 
and crowds are calling for revenge.

As for the U.S., this case is reminiscent of the USS Liberty (June 8, 1967). 
During the Six Day War, the Israelis attacked a U.S. Navy electronic 
surveillance ship, leaving 34 dead and 171 wounded. Tel Aviv presented an 
apology for the mistake made in a battle situation; while accepting it 
officially, Washington regarded it as a deliberate breach. At that time, the 
Israeli intention was to sanction the U.S. for its criticisms of Israel.

This time, the attack on the freedom convoy could represent a retaliation in 
light of Washington's vote in favour of a resolution by States signatory of 
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty enjoining Israel to declare its nuclear 
arsenal and to accept inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The Israeli decision to attack civilian vessels in international waters came 
after the assassination in the Emirates a Palestinian leader by a Mossad 
cell, the discovery of a vast network of falsified copies of passports to 
the embarrassment of Western states; and after Israel's refusal to attend 
the international follow-up conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
Treaty. This set of facts can either be interpreted as a succession of 
exploits on the part of a state which is confident of its impunity - in this 
case, it could amount to just one more exploit or one too many -, or as an 
escalation following a brief public friction with the U.S. administration - 
signifying that Israel is asserting itself as the leader of the Zionist 
movement by showing that Tel Aviv decides and Washington complies.

Travelling in North America, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to 
end his Canadian visit and cancel his visit to the White House. He had a 
telephone contact with President Obama who asked for an explanation.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated 
that the Israeli operation had absolutely no legal justification. The U.N. 
Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, 
Richard Falk, made it a point to emphasize that beyond the violation of the 
freedom of movement at sea, the blockade remains the fundamental issue. 
"Unless prompt and decisive actions are taken to challenge Israel's attitude 
vis-à-vis Gaza, we will all be complicit in a criminal policy that threatens 
the survival of a beleaguered community," he said. The Security Council was 
urgently convened the same day at 6 p.m.. The Turkish Minister of Foreign 
Affairs departed for New York [4].

*************

Thierry Meyssan is a French political analyst, founder and chairman of the 
Voltaire Network and Axis for Peace. He publishes columns dealing with 
international relations in daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, 
Spanish and Russian. His latest books published in English  are 9/11:the Big 
Lie and Pentagate.

*******

[1] « Dr. Arafat Shoukri : Conditions are ripe to make this flotilla the 
'tipping point' », interview by Silvia Cattori, silviacattori.net, 23 April 
2010.

[2] The principal organisers of the freedom flotilla are: Mouvement Free 
Gaza, Campagne Européenne pour Arrêter le Siège de Gaza (ECESG), 
Turkey-based Humanitarian Aid Foundation (IHH), the Perdana Foundation of 
Malaysia and the International Committee to Lift the Siege on Gaza.

[3] Strategy shift in the Middle East, by Thierry Meyssan, Voltaire Network, 
16 May 2010.

[4] « Speech by Ahmet Davutoglu at the UN Security Council », Voltaire 
Network, June 1, 2010.