Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Israel obeyed international law

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/06/02/2010-06-02_israel_obeyed_international_law_legally_the_gaza_flotilla_conflict_is_an_openand.html?print=1&page=all
Israel obeyed international law: Legally, the Gaza flotilla conflict is 
an open-and-shut case
By Alan Dershowitz
Wednesday, June 2nd 2010, 4:00 AM
Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is 
open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did 
was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In 
order to understand why, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.
First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Recall that when Israel 
ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed, it 
left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated 
Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area.
Instead, Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare 
against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, 
nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only 
an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets 
by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no 
rockets or other material that could be used for making war against 
Israeli civilians were permitted into Gaza.
Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well 
participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in 
Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket 
attacks ended.
The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to 
serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile 
crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to 
be lawful. This despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of 
belligerence against the United States. Other nations have similarly 
enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.
The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in 
international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no 
doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break 
the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending 
ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and 
other Western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in 
order to assure their security.
Third, were those onboard the ship simply innocent noncombatants? The 
act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act. And let there 
be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla; it was decidedly not 
to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather to 
break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in 
the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, 
medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed 
to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was 
soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla, who publicly announced: 
"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about 
breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians."
It is a close question whether "civilians" who agree to participate in 
the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are 
certainly something different from pure innocents, and perhaps they are 
also somewhat different from pure armed combatants.
Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self-defense engaged in by 
Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can 
be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a 
weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers, they lost their status as 
innocent civilians.
Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of 
self-defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and 
his colleagues from attack by knife- and pipe-wielding assailants. Lest 
there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view 
the online video and watch the so-called peaceful activists pummel 
Israeli soldiers with metal rods.
Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of 
lethal force. That was especially true in this case, when the soldiers 
were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel's rules 
of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their 
lives were in danger.
Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of 
self-defense under comparable circumstances?
Israel's critics fail to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that 
allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the 
blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the 
boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths 
of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the 
result of lawful acts of self-defense.
There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by 
its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty 
policies and alleged violations of international law. Only the latter 
would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not 
been made that Israel violated international law.

 civilians.
Vero.
-Stefano