What I found interesting was the exchange about legality.

Hostage wrote on July 20, 2011 at 7:26 am:
…
The official commentary on Article 59 of the Geneva Conventions describes many of the customary prohibitions that Israel is deliberately violating regarding supplies of essential items and relief consignments to a civilian population. The convention provides that free passage of relief consignments is mandatory:
“The principle of free passage, as set forth in this clause, means that relief consignments for the population of an occupied territory must be allowed to pass through the blockade; they cannot under any circumstances be declared war contraband or be seized as such by those enforcing the blockade. The obligation to authorize the free passage of relief consignments is accompanied by the obligation to guarantee their protection. It will not be enough merely to lift the blockade and refrain from attacking or confiscating the goods. More than that will be required: all the States concerned must respect the consignments and protect them when they are exposed to danger through military operations“.

The official commentary also stipulates that the safeguards for verification and supervision,
“which were prescribed in the interests of the Powers granting free passage, must in no case be misused in order to make the rule [i.e. free passage] itself inoperative or unduly delay the forwarding of relief“.
…
France and Turkey were the parties to the landmark S.S. Lotus case in which the PCIJ ruled that “the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that – failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary – it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State.” The US abstained from the vote on UN SC 1860. I doubt that Bibi is eager to take on a permanent member of the Security Council in an international court over the the legality of Israel’s blockade or which state owns Gaza’s territorial waters

Fredblogs wrote on July 21, 2011 at 4:31 pm:
… Just because it is legal to fight and capture an enemy soldier, does not mean you can prosecute him (unless he has committed war crimes). POWs aren’t prosecuted, they are locked up until traded back or until hostilities have ended.
In the case of blockades, you can only make them POWs if they have committed certain specified acts. For passengers, that is that they personally committed acts of hostility against the captor (San Remo 166a). That would be the passengers who actually fight. For crew it is that and also those who commit a list of other acts, including breaching a blockade (San Remo 166c) if they are “breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;” (San Remo 67a). I don’t know whether “breaching a blockade” includes heading toward the blockaded port, passing into the declared enforcement area of the blockade, or just entering the specific waters of the blockaded place…

Hostage wrote on July 21, 2011 at 8:09 pm:
It really isn’t the end of the matter since neither the U.N. HRC, nor the ICRC has the authority to “declare” a blockade illegal.
They most certainly do have the power. There are no international courts with compulsory jurisdiction, so states have always entrusted treaty bodies with the authority to make determinations and report violations of international law. In a number of cases the ICJ has advised that other UN organs can make legal determinations within their area of competence. The UN HRC has a mandate from the General Assembly “to address situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations”. See General Assembly Resolution 60/251, 15 March 2006 entitled “Human Rights Council” and the “Report of the international fact-finding mission to investigate violations of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance, A/HRC/15/21, 22 September 2010. UN HRC also operates human rights treaty bodies for the Contracting State Parties. Israel is bound by the terms of its acceptance of those agreements to act on the decisions of the treaty body panels of experts.
The ICRC has been formally entrusted with the role of guardian of international humanitarian law. It also published the official explanation of the San Remo Manual article 102 which explained that any blockade may become illegal and stipulated some of the possible conditions … Judge Schwebel noted that when the General Assembly adopted the consensus Definition of Aggression it was concluding more than fifty years of sporadic discussions among the members of the international community of states on that subject. The definition included military occupations and blockades as specific examples of constituent acts of the crime of aggression. Shortly after the attack on the first flotilla, the ICC review conference voted to incorporate that definition into the Rome Statute. So, the notion that there is an authoritative international convention that grants any state permission to unilaterally employ a blockade over the objections of the ICRC, UNHRC, UNRWA, & etc. is utter nonsense. Every time an Israeli official travels abroad, he or she is at risk of being arrested for crimes against humanity in connection with the blockade.

Fredblogs wrote on July 22, 2011 at 6:40 pm:
Which might actually matter, if Israel were a signatory to the 1st additional protocol. Which it isn’t. So it doesn’t matter.
Wait, even if Israel were a signatory, it’s not offers of “relief consignments” that would be the hostile act, it would be fighting the soldiers. Even in the section you cite goes against you: Parties (e.g., blockaders) “a) shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted;”
Which is lifted, almost word for word from San Remo paragraph 103(a):
“the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and”
Remember, if you are going to allow blockades at all (ever), which International law does, then you aren’t going to require that any blockader just take someone’s word that they aren’t smuggling weapons or other contraband. It would make the whole blockade pointless if anyone could just waltz across with a smile and a “I’m a humanitarian ship”.

Hostage wrote on July 22, 2011 at 10:05 pm:
Which might actually matter, if Israel were a signatory to the 1st additional protocol. Which it isn’t. So it doesn’t matter.
Even the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled that the customary rules in Additional Protocol 1 are part of Israeli law. HCJ 769/02 (11 December 2005) The Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel, at ¶ 20 says:
In addition, the laws of armed conflict are entrenched in 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, hereinafter The First Protocol. Israel is not party to that protocol, and it was not enacted in domestic Israeli legislation. Of course, the customary provisions of The First Protocol are part of Israeli law.
So, once again:
*The San Remo Manual explanation; the GCIV Article 59 and 1st Add. Article 70 commentary on the rule of free passage stipulate that Israel’s right of supervision can not be used to make the rule of free passage through the blockade to the coast of the blockaded belligerent inoperative and that offers of relief can not be regarded as interference in the armed conflict or as unfriendly acts.
*ICRC Customary Rule 55. “Access for Humanitarian Relief to Civilians in Need” says:
The Fourth Geneva Convention requires States to “allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores” intended only for civilians and “the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant mothers and maternity cases”.[1] Additional Protocol I broadens this obligation to cover “rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel”.[2] This broadening is generally accepted, including by States not, or not at the time, party to Additional Protocol I.[3]
.
Many military manuals contain the obligation to allow and facilitate access of humanitarian relief to civilians in need.[4] The obligation to allow and facilitate access of humanitarian relief to civilians in need is also supported by official statements and reported practice.[5] The United Nations, in particular, has on many occasions called for respect for the rule. The UN Security Council, for example, has called for unimpeded access for humanitarian relief efforts in Iraq and in all areas affected by the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.[6]
.
It is also relevant that under the Statute of the International Criminal Court, extermination, defined as including “the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia, the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population”, constitutes a crime against humanity when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.[12] The legislation of numerous States provides for the crime of extermination.[13]
*Customary IHL Rule 103. Collective Punishments says
The prohibition of collective punishments is stated in the Hague Regulations and the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions.[2] The prohibition is recognized in Additional Protocols I and II as a fundamental guarantee for all civilians and persons hors de combat.[3]
*The overwhelming majority of UN Security Council members say that Israel is in violation of resolution 1860 which called for unimpeded access for humanitarian aid. link to un.org
even if Israel were a signatory, it’s not offers of “relief consignments” that would be the hostile act, it would be fighting the soldiers.
You’ve never cited a permissive rule that allows the enforcement of a blockade outside the published coordinates. Israel acted prematurely and used excessive force when it attacked a neutral foreign-flagged aid ship in international waters. The passengers and crew had an individual right of self-defense against the illegal use of force by the IDF.
Even in the section you cite goes against you: Parties (e.g., blockaders) “a) shall have the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted;”
Israel has refused to prescribe any arrangements whatsoever under which free or unimpeded passage of vessels to the coasts of Gaza is permitted. So, you are failing to even address the rule of free passage through the blockade: “the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted”

Hostage wrote on July 22, 2011 at 11:30 pm:
BTW, thanks for the link to the ICRC “official” explanation. Which is actually the Red Cross’s explanatory commentary, and doesn’t claim to be a legally binding “official” explanation.
The commentaries are published by the ICRC Legal Commission for the benefit of government officials and legal practitioners responsible for applying the conventions and protocols. Unlike the San Remo “explanation”, they are legal opinions, not merely discussions about legal principles. They’re based on the “travaux preparatoires” of the Convention which are preserved in the Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949 & protocols et. seq. They’re are frequently cited in accordance with Article 38 of the ICJ Statute which provides that the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations are a subsidiary means for the determination of the rules of law.
It makes exactly the point I made in other posts. 102a isn’t violated and 102b is based on military necessity and amount of damage done to the civilians.
The ICRC doesn’t interpret Article 50(1) and 50(2) of the 1st Additional Protocol in that way at all. For example, you can’t starve 10% of the children of an occupied territory on the basis of “military necessity”. In fact, the ICJ advised that Article 51 of the UN Charter doesn’t apply to belligerent occupation regimes at all. It already ruled that Israel’s regime in the territories was violating the right of Palestinians to adequate supplies of food, water, and a decent standard of living.
There is a jus in bello right of visit, but there is no jus in bello right to blockade an occupied territory. There is no state practice to support the notion that the jus ad bellum right of self-defense permits preventive interdiction of arms flows on the high seas. See Craig M. Scott, Israel’s seizure of the Gaza?bound flotilla: applicable laws and legality, Peer Zumbansen, John W. Cioffi, Lisa Philipps, Nassim Nasser (eds), Osgoode Hall Law School, Research Paper No. 42/2010, Electronic copy available at: link to ssrn.com

James wrote on July 20, 2011 at 1:19 am:
“Israel has declared a blockade on Gaza and justified previous fatal attacks on neutral civilian vessels on the High Seas in terms of enforcing that embargo, under the legal cover given by the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.”
“There are however fundamental flaws in this line of argument. It falls completely on one fact alone. San Remo only applies to blockade in times of armed conflict. Israel is not currently engaged in an armed conflict, and presumably does not wish to be. San Remo does not confer any right to impose a permanent blockade outwith times of armed conflict, and in fact specifically excludes as illegal a general blockade on an entire population.”
“It should not be denied that Israel suffers from sporadic terrorist attacks emanating from Gaza.
However this does not come close to reaching the bar of armed conflict that would trigger the right to impose a limited naval blockade in terms of San Remo. To make a comparison, in the 1970?s and 1980?s the United Kingdom suffered continued terrorist attack from the Irish Republican Army, with much more murderous impact causing many more deaths than anything Israel has suffered in recent years from Gaza. However nobody would seek to argue that the UK would have had the right to mount a general naval blockade of the Republic of Ireland in the 1970?s and 1980?s, even though the Republic was undoubtedly the base for much IRA supply and operations. Justifications of Israeli naval action against neutral civilian ships by San Remo is based on special pleading and an impossibly strained definition of the term “armed conflict”.
link to canpalnet-ottawa.org

Hostage wrote on July 21, 2011 at 3:39 am:
Which means that the laws governing such conflicts apply; and under these laws, sea blockades are allowed.
When jurists come together they also agree that fact-finding missions performed by officials “on mission” for the relevant treaty monitoring bodies have a legal mandate to report violations of international conventions within their areas of competence. If the ICRC and the UN HRC say that a particular blockade has become illegal, that’s really the end of the matter. As usual, the US and Israel have hand-picked an ad hoc inquiry commission to offer rebuttal and conceal that fact, while muddying the waters. There is nothing new about that.

Fredblogs wrote on July 21, 2011 at 4:40 pm:
It really isn’t the end of the matter since neither the U.N. HRC, nor the ICRC has the authority to “declare” a blockade illegal. If by “declare” you mean “issue a legally binding determination”. They have the authority to _say_ that they think it’s illegal, but so do you. Just like I have the authority to _say_ that I think it is legal, but not the authority to “declare” it legal.
Whether it is actually legal boils down to whether “the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade”. (San Remo 102b).
Israel thinks it isn’t, the Palestinians think it is, and there is no objective body to decide which is true.

This is an excerpt from the exchange of comments on a Mondoweiss post published here.

Since the Jan25 revolution in Egypt led to Husni’s Mubarak’s forced resignation, there has been speculation about a new and more open Egyptian policy to Gaza.

But, the adventures of two Egyptian guys [@dooolism and @tarekshalaby] trying to enter Gaza via Rafah (or, via the infamous Rafah-to Rafah-tunnels) shows us it hasn’t happened yet.

They reveal, among other things, that Hamas has a visa policy for human passage into Gaza via the tunnels.

Here is a summary or synopsis of their account:

@dooolism – so 2night [n.b. - Thursday] with possibly the worst plan ever conceived by mankind, @tarekshalaby and I will head 2 Areesh & attempt 2 get into #Gaza 2morrow. – 3:12 PM Apr 21st

@dooolism – @Tarekshalaby and I can enter most North American, European, Asian and African countries right now, but they won’t allow us into #Gaza #irony – 9:40 PM Apr 22nd

@dooolism – Hamas tunnel visa to #Gaza makes European Schengen visa like a walk in the park #justsayin – 9:10 PM Apr 22nd

@dooolism – Not looking good, Hamas minister of tunnels (yes there’s an unofficial official position ) denied our tunnel application to #Gaza – Friday, April 22, 2011 8:23:32 PM

@dooolism – Minister of tunnels doesn’t want to piss off new #Egypt govt with an unauthorized entry to #Gaza, hence rejecting our tunnel crossing – Friday, April 22, 2011 8:29:29 PM

@dooolism – In terms of dodginess, #Rafah really reminds me of Cuidade del Este on the Paraguay-Brazil border #dodgy – about 11 hours ago [early Saturday afternoon]

@dooolism – Also crossing from #Colombia to #Venzulela was pretty dodgy, but I think #Rafah beats them all, still on our last ditch attempt 2 #Gaza tho – about 11 hours ago

@dooolism – #tunnelshopping in #Rafah, some shut down for maintenance, some 2 small, some 2 expensive, 2 bad there is no Expedia for tunnels – about 8 hours ago

@dooolism – Not good, our fixer said all tunnel owners he has spoken to are not willing 2 transport Egyptians 2 #Gaza without authorization – about 7 hours ago

@dooolism – … we were hoping to do a report on the humanitarian case in Gaza – about 6 hours ago

@dooolism – Sadly, we are pulling the plug on our trip, @Tarekshalaby and I, we have exhausted all possible avenues both normal and dodgy, headn 2 Areesh – about 6 hours ago

@dooolism – Sadly our #Gaza mini-mission comes 2 n end, @Tarekshalaby n his way 2 Cairo and I am spending night in Areesh bfor heading to south Sinai tom – about 6 hours ago

@dooolism – Watching a perfect #Mediterranean sunset in Areesh #bliss – http://t.co/QGuCeUK – about 4 hours ago

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

@dooolism is Adel Abdel Ghafar, who describes himself as “Reformed banker, travel guru, middle eastern studies post-graduate student, activist, a concerned citizen of this planet who gets along much better with fish”…
and
@Tarekshalaby is Tarek Shalaby, who describes himself as a “freelance web designer” and “Blogger, Social Media consultant and Web Designer from Cairo, Egypt. Have always been, and will always be, a proud Egyptian. Love cultures, languages and travel”

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

@Tarekshalaby – So: tunnel owners don’t want to upset Hamas, who don’t want to upset Egyptian authorities, who don’t want to upset Israel. Won’t let us thru – 8:44 PM Apr 22nd

@Tarekshalaby – Now @Thawrah is writing us the letter that we’re going to send to Hamas so that they can give us permission to use an ilegal tunnel to #Gaza – 9:23 PM Apr 22nd

@Tarekshalaby – Both sides of a border forced on to us by Israel and the Arab dictators see the exact same beautiful night sky. Victory will prevail. #Gaza – 9:32 PM Apr 22nd

@Tarekshalaby – I’d like to think that @dooolism and I did everything we could to get into #Gaza, but failed (this time). Heading back to Cairo via Arish – about 6 hours ago

@Tarekshalaby – I blame the Egyptian authorities for fully collaborating with #Israel and pressuring #Gaza into a worsening blockade. Arabs will unite. – about 6 hours ago

@Tarekshalaby – Rafah – Arish – El Marg – Ramses – Behoos – home (for 29.75 LE total!). Next time we will make it into #Gaza. – 3 minutes ago

Ashkenazi is the third high-ranking Israeli official to take responsibility for the Flotilla fiasco.  Earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu and Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak also said the responsibility was theirs.

Haaretz also reported that “despite initial reports that military personnel would not testify before the Turkel committee, Ashkenazi has authorized Military Advocate General Brig. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit to testify before the panel.  Ashkenazi also approved the questioning of General (Res.) Giora Eiland, who headed the IDF’s internal inquiry into the deadly raid”.  This is reported in Haaretz here.

A Reuters account of Ashkenazi’s testimony reported that “The commission offers a closely-managed forum where Israeli leaders can argue their case. Its summary and that of a military probe are due to be sent to an independent investigation which opened at the United Nations in New York on Tuesday. The operation to stop the ship from reaching the Gaza Strip, under blockade by Israel and Egypt, depended for its success on getting as many commandos on deck as possible in the shortest time, Ashkenazi said. But that did not happen. Accurate, suppressing fire from alongside the ship would have cleared the deck of anyone ready to violently resist the boarding, the general said. This was ‘a lesson we have learned’. The first commandos were armed with paintball guns and holstered sidearms in anticipation of only light resistance. The second soldier down the rope was shot in the stomach, he said. Asked about Turkey’s claim that activists were shot dead from close range, Ashkenazi said much of the fighting happened in close quarters. He told how a soldier shot one Turkish man about to swing an axe at him. Ashkenazi also showed previously unpublished video of the raid which included images of three wounded Israeli commandos dragged to a lower deck and held by activists. Israeli leaders insist Israel was legally within its rights to stop a deliberately provocative bid to break its naval blockade of the Gaza Strip. The investigating panel has so far heard mostly pre-scripted statements. Cameras are turned off and reporters excluded for a closed-door question session that follows an initial open session … Israeli media have treated the inquiry with scepticism, focussing predominantly on what they see as buck-passing and finger-pointing in the top ranks of the leadership”. This Reuters report, vla the Jordan Times, can be read in full here.

There is also a report on [Lt. General] Ashkenazi’s testimony on the IDF spokespersons website, which says that “According to the Chief of the General Staff, the military investigations clarified that ‘our main mistake was that we were unable to create the conditions in order to have a maximum of force in a minimum of time. I believed that the 15 persons who were on the upper deck would move aside once we arrived in a helicopter at night and threw stun grenades. We should have used more precise weapons in order to neutralize the danger and create sterile conditions on the ship. We should have put soldiers on the sides of the boat with weapons appropriate for neutralizing those who prevented the soldiers on the helicopter from descending. It would have reduced the danger for our soldiers but it wouldn’t have avoided the confrontation, because they came looking for a confrontation with us’, he added”.  The IDF spokespersons’ summary is posted here.

The IDF spokesperson’s website also reports that “Speaking at a graduation ceremony for the Naval Captain’s Course which was held Wednesday evening (Aug. 11) in the Haifa Naval base … [Ashkenazi] stressed that the Israel Naval Corps will serve as a maritime shield stopping flotillas intending to travel to the Gaza Strip in the coming months. ‘We find ourselves in times where the Mediterranean Sea and its shores are more agitated than usual and we are experiencing de-legitimization attempts by our enemies’, he said … ['Thanks to the Naval Corps] we know that the next flotillas which will attempt to break our borders and the weapons ships which seek to arm terrorist organizations will be stopped by the maritime defensive shield of the State of Israel and its Navy’, Lt. Gen. Ashkenazi said”. This can be viewed in full here.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s testimony earlier in the week [but not the Q+A in closed session] is posted on the Israeli MFA website here.

A critique of Netanyahu’s testimony was published today by the blog of the Israeli human rights organization GISHA, which has led efforts to stop Israel’s military-administered sanctions against the Gaza Strip since they went into effect in October 2007.

GISHA wrote that “Even seasoned pundits could not help but express dismay this week at the televised testimony by senior Israeli officials, beginning with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, before the Turkel Commission charged with investigating the Israeli military’s May 31 interception of ships bound for Gaza. As the Israeli daily Haaretz pointed out in a scathing editorial, Netanyahu readily acknowledged that Israel’s decisions on what to allow or prohibit into Gaza were based not on concern for the welfare of the population in Gaza but rather about Israel’s image in the international media … If the limitations really were, as Netanyahu claimed, necessary ‘to prevent the entry of weapons and war materiel into Gaza’, easing them just in order to improve Israel’s public relations would seem grossly irresponsible. If they weren’t necessary for security – why were they imposed in the first place?”

The GISHA post added that “We also found puzzling Netanyahu’s claim that ‘Israel increased the number of trucks entering Gaza by approximately 30 percent over the five months preceding the flotilla incident’. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in the first five months of 2010, Israel actually decreased the volume of trucks permitted into Gaza by 9 percent, relative to 2009 (see the first and last pages of the MFA report, which show that the monthly average of trucks allowed into Gaza in 2009 was 2,576, compared with just 2,329 in the first five months of 2010).   The real change in the volume of trucks permitted into Gaza came only after [emphasis added] the flotilla incident, when Israel was pressed to justify its policy blocking the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza: Last week, Israel allowed Gaza residents to receive 1,126 truckloads of goods, approximately 45 percent of need, as compared to about 25 percent of need prior to the flotilla incident. Export and the movement of people, critical for economic recovery and normal life in Gaza, are still blocked.  Perhaps these restrictions do not constitute a sufficiently heavy ‘diplomatic and public relations burden’?”  This GISHA comment is posted here.

Meanwhile, Turkey has reportedly announced that it will conduct its own inquiry into the Flotilla fiasco, which will “investigate the attack and the treatment the activists faced”. Eight Turkish men and one American high school student of Turkish origin were killed in the Israeli Naval raid on the Mavi Marmara, a large passenger ship leased by the Turkish humanitarian relief organization IHH and carrying over 600 people on board when it was intercepted by Israeli Navy missile boats at sea in the eastern Mediterranean on 31 May.  Haaretz reported that “Turkey’s commission will include officials from the foreign, justice, interior and transport ministries as well as from the country’s maritime agency … Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said on Tuesday that Israel should admit sole responsibility for the deaths aboard the Mavi Marmara. ‘No one else can take the blame for killing civilians in international waters’, Davutoglu told journalists.  ‘Israel has killed civilians, and should take the responsibility for having done so’.” This is reported here.

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Turkish Foreign Minister told AFP that “The panel is expected to operate under the prime minister’s office and publicize a written report on the investigation, the foreign ministry said in a statement. The international panel established by the United Nations earlier in August, which is also leading its own investigation into the raid, will be presented with the results of the Turkish commission … The statement did not include a planned date as to when the commission will present its findings. According to press reports, Turkish prosecutors initiated an investigation against top Israeli officials in June, which will potentially lead to the pressing of various charges, such as murder, injury, attacking Turkish citizens while in international waters and piracy”. The JPost report is posted here.

Ravid wrote that when asked who decided on the raid, “Netanyahu replied that it was the Israel Defense Forces’ decision”…

Ravid’s report on Netanyahu’s testimony continued: “The only orders the government gave the army, he [Netanyahu] said, were ‘to carry out the operation with minimal friction, and as far as possible without harm to life or limb’ … But he admitted that the septet [the seven-minister Security Cabinet] never thoroughly discussed all the ramifications of a military operation; it focused mainly on the diplomatic and public-relations angles … Asked by Turkel whether the government considered nonmilitary options for enforcing the Gaza blockade, Netanyahu said no. “I said the IDF should examine the various options for carrying out the order,” he said … Panel member Miguel Deutsch, a jurist, asked whether the septet heard any assessments on the likelihood of resistance by the Mavi Marmara’s passengers. ‘It arose incidentally, as part of a discussion on the problem of friction, the public-relations problem that could arise’, Netanyahu answered. ‘I left explicit orders that the person responsible for dealing with the flotilla, in all its aspects, was the defense minister [Ehud Barak]‘, Netanyahu [who was in Canada at the time of the Israeli naval raid on the Flotilla] replied … Netanyahu told the panel that information about the flotilla and its organizers, the Turkish group IHH, first reached Israel in April. ‘ The goal of the flotilla’s organizers was to foment a well-publicized clash on the high seas with the IDF and generate international pressure to remove the naval blockade’, he said. ‘ That’s the material we had in our hands.  It was in my hands as prime minister, it was in the hands of the defense minister, the foreign minister and the ministers of the septet, and of course it was in the hands of all the professional agencies involved in enforcing the blockade – the IDF and the other security agencies’.  He added that ‘all the ministers of the septet, without exception, expressed the view that despite the expected public-relations damage, the blockade policy must be enforced, because of the matter’s importance to Israel’s security’.”   This account of Netanyahu’s testimony can be read in full here.

After the public testimony, Netanyahu reportedly stayed for another hour of discussion behind closed doors yesterday.

Ravid then wrote in Haaretz about Israeli Defense Minister [and former Prime Minister] Ehud Barak’s testimony today before the Turkel commission, saying that “Unlike Prime Minister Benjamin Netayahu, who in his testimony the day before dodged tricky questions by skimping on detail, Barak bombarded the panel with names, dates and facts before launching an evasive maneuver in the form of a pompous oration on the dangers of global terror and a nuclear Iran, helpfully informing the committee that Israel was not North America, or indeed Western Europe. Barak’s testimony showed him far better prepared than Netanyahu. While the prime minister came poorly equipped with the information he need to answer the panel, Barak was armed top the teeth with minute details on every question raised during every cabinet discussion before the raid, and every similar operation preceding it. The defense minister presented Turkel with a briefing so comprehensive that for an hour and a half – an hour longer than Netanyahu’s testimony – the panel could only grimace their frustration as they failed to get a word in edgeways. Eventually, one panel member, Reuven Merhav, managed to force a halt to the tirade. ‘We only got the defense ministry materials yesterday’, he said. ‘You’re talking fast and swamping us with details. I’d like to move on to questions’. Barak responded with a request for another 20 minutes to complete his overview before being cross-examined”.  Ravid’s account of Barak’s testimony can be read in full here.

Ravid reported that he detected signs that Netanyahu had tried to soothe friction with his Defense Minister that arose as a result of the testimony.

The Jerusalem Post reported today that “Barak said as he entered the panel session to testify that he ‘bears all responsibility for what happens in the IDF and full responsibility for military instructions that were given during the flotilla raid’. ‘The decision to stop the flotilla was made after a thorough examination of the options available by the prime minister and the Septet’, Barak stressed. The defense minister said ‘concrete intelligence information was presented during a military briefing’. ‘During the military briefing [IDF Chief of General Staff] Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi reiterated his concerns over the conduct of the world media if force was used to stop the flotilla, however, he said that it wont be easy but we will do it’, Barak commented. Barak said that the orders for the flotilla raid were formulated in accordance with all the relevant government offices”. This JPost account is published here.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu commented today that “Israel should take full responsibility for the deaths of the nine Turkish citizens who were killed on the Mavi Marmara, Israel Radio reported. ‘No one else can take the blame for killing civilians in international waters’, Davutoglu was quoted in a Reuters report. ‘Israel has killed civilians, and should take the responsibility for having done so’. Davutoglu’s comments came as a response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s testimony before the Turkel Committee, in which he said that Turkey did not make any efforts to stop the Mavi Marmara and should be investigated … ‘Turkey has no responsibility in the attack on the Mavi Marmara flotilla’, Davutoglu told Reuters”. This was published in the JPost here .

A UN investigation launched by UNSG BAN Ki-Moon after a UN Security Council resolution is getting organized.   BAN said that there is no private agreement not to call Israeli soldiers to testify, but he said that there would be no finding of “individual responsibility” either.

A separate inquiry authorized by the UN Human Rights Council held its inaugural meeting in Geneva today.  A UN press release indicated that “The Mission of high-level experts is chaired by Judge K. Hudson-Phillips, former judge of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, and its members are Sir Desmond de Silva, Queen’s Counsel, who was Chief Prosecutor of the Sierra Leone War Crimes Tribunal and Ms. Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia, a human rights expert and former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women …  The Chairman of the Mission noted that the Mission’s principal task is to conduct an inquiry into legal issues and possible violations of international humanitarian and human rights law … It is its intention to travel to the region in order to interview persons and gather first-hand information as far as possible.  As requested by the Human Rights Council’s resolution, the Mission will present its report at the next session of the Council in September”.

Netanyahu, who was the first person to testify at the first official session of the Turkel Commission, promised that “During the closed forum [a future event with restricted or no media coverage], I will expand on my statement and explain why none of our diplomatic efforts would have prevented the Marmara’s desire to try to break the blockade”.

The Israeli Prime Minister did note, in today’s statement, that “Given the lack of effective pressure by the Turkish government and the lack of any desire on the part of the flotilla organizers to redirect their ships to alternative ports, none of the diplomatic efforts were effective:
•We tried to prevent the launch of the flotilla at the diplomatic and security levels. We did not succeed.
•We suggested transferring the goods through the Ashdod and El-Arish ports. We did not succeed.
•We held continuous contacts vis-à-vis and with the most senior levels of the Turkish government. We did not succeed” …

Netanyahu pinned this list of Israeli failures on Turkey’s unsuccessful effort [with Brazil] to help work out a deal concerning Iran’s nuclear program: “I must point out that on the 17th of that month [May], the Turkish prime minister met with Iranian president Ahmadinejad and with the Brazilian president to make a joint statement regarding an Iranian nuclear that was opposed by the United States and the other permanent members of the UN Security Council. Turkey thereby strengthened its identification and cooperation with Iran just days before the flotilla”.

Netayahu continued, in his statement to the Turkel Commission: “Forces hostile to Israel used the baseless allegation of a humanitarian crisis to try and break the naval blockade. This was and remains the primary motivation of Hamas in its efforts to encourage the various flotillas. From time to time, these things are even said explicitly, as a spokeswoman for the flotilla said on May 27, 2010: ‘Our mission is not to provide humanitarian aid, but rather to break the blockade’ … ”

He justified the January 2009 naval blockade of the Gaza Strip by two highly-publicized interceptions of arms shipments that took place years earlier — both of which were said to have originated in Iran, but one of which was destined for Lebanon: “I would like to explain how dangerous an open sea lane to Gaza is for the security of the State of Israel. On one ship, the Karin A, Iran tried to send dozens of tons of weapons to Gaza. On another ship, the Francop, Iran tried to send Hezbollah hundreds of tons of weapons, approximately two-thirds of the total ammunition fired at Israel during the Second Lebanon War. Due to all these security considerations, my government continued to enforce the naval blockade imposed by the previous government. We did so for the flotilla in question, as well as with the two ships that followed – the Irish ship and the Libyan ship. Before this flotilla, the IDF prepared to enforce the blockade, as it had during previous flotillas. Given the number of ships, their size, the number of passengers on board and their stated intentions, we saw the need to make a special diplomatic effort to try and prevent the flotilla’s arrival to the shores of Gaza – or at the very least to convince its organizers to dock at Ashdod or El-Arish and from there to direct the goods through land crossings after the appropriate security checks”.

Netanyahu outlined a number of diplomatic contacts made to try to prevent the Freedom Flotilla from sailing: “During the month of May, a continual diplomatic effort to this end was made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs vis-a-vis many countries, including countries whose citizens were onboard or whose harbors could be used by the flotilla at any stage of its voyage – including Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Ireland, Britain, the United Nations, and above all with Turkey. The Minister of Defense even participated in these efforts. Given the importance I attributed to Turkey’s central role in this flotilla, my office worked directly to assist in the diplomatic efforts vis-à-vis Turkey. Beginning on May 14, my office was in contact with the highest echelons of the Turkish government. These contacts, and later on the contacts of our Minister of Defense with the Turkish Foreign Minister whom he has known for many years, were intended to prevent any conflict with the Marmara flotilla. They continued up until the eve of the flotilla’s arrival off the coast of Gaza. I too personally appealed to a senior official in the Egyptian government on May 27 so that he would intervene with the Turkish government. However, as the date of the flotilla’s arrival neared, it became clear that diplomatic efforts would not stop it. In contrast, diplomatic efforts did assist in preventing violent confrontations with the two ships that came after this flotilla – because the Irish government and parties in Libya acted responsibly and helped prevent a confrontation and also because the organizers of those flotillas did not have any intention of confronting our forces – unlike the organizers of the flotilla in question, or more precisely, unlike the IHH activists on the flagship, the Mavi Marmara … Despite our ongoing diplomatic efforts, ultimately the Turkish government did not prevent the Marmara’s attempt to break the naval blockade. All our suggestions to re-route the ship’s cargo to undergo a security inspection in Ashdod and then be transferred to Gaza through the land crossings were in vain. We also did not hear a public message from the Turkish government to cool the heated tempers of the activists onboard. Apparently the Turkish government did not see that a possible incident between Turkish activists and Israel was against their interests, and certainly not something that justified exerting effective pressure of the IHH activists … Regarding the IHH activists, not only did they not prevent a confrontation, they announced their intention to seek one — they announced that they wanted to break the blockade and that ‘the Jews need to go back Auschwitz’. [n.b., Netanyahu seems to have taken this quote from recorded remarks made on a totally open transmission channel -- on which remarks over the radio from any ship at sea in that vicinity could have and apparently were recorded -- during the Israeli naval communication with the Freedom Flotilla in the early morning hours of 31 May. There is absolutely no proof that this remark was made by any crew member or participant in the Freedom Flotilla, and this is also, in any case, not an exact quote]

Netanyahu concluded by saying that videos taken by the Israeli navy [possibly augmented by footage confiscated by the Flotilla participants, though Netanyahu did not say that] helped many people to understand that “our soldiers faced a very real danger to their lives from brutal attacks with clubs, metal rods and knives and – as you have no doubt learned – from live weapons. IDF soldiers acted in self-defense. We made tremendous efforts to prevent injuries, but the IDF soldiers have the right to defend themselves”.

The soldiers who were beaten on board the Mavi Marmara were not, however, in danger — until their commanders ordered them to rappel down, one by one, from helicopters hovering over the deck of the ship carrying more than 600 angry and frightened passengers.

In his statement, Netanahu said that as the Flotilla sailed toward Gaza, he had “asked that the confrontation be minimized as much as possible and ‘that a supreme effort be made to avoid harming anyone’. I know that the Minister of Defense and Chief of General Staff gave the same order”.

He said he had “authorized directives” that included “embedding foreign reporters with IDF forces so that they could record and film the unfolding events in order to prevent the dissemination of false reports”. He ” said hewanted to ensure that there would be complete coverage of what would happen when our soldiers boarded the ships because I was afraid that, once again, there would be an attempt to try to slander IDF soldiers as part of the ongoing propaganda war against Israel. Unfortunately, slandering the IDF and the State of Israel happens time after time”.

To my recollection, none of the videos shown after the event were identified as having been taken by the “foreign reporters” who had been “embedded” with the Israeli Naval party that intercepted and eventually boarded the Freedom Flotilla.

According to the statement, Netanyahu said that “Israel has nothing to hide. The opposite is true. It is in the national interest of the State of Israel to ensure that the factual truth of the overall flotilla events comes to light throughout the world and this is exactly the principle that we are advancing.”

The Prime Minister consulted his “Security Cabinet” — a “seven-member ministerial forum” — before the decision was announced,  and, the statement said, “diplomatic contacts … have been held in recent weeks in order to ensure that this was indeed a panel with a balanced and fair written mandate”.

Haaretz’s Barak Raviv wrote that This is the first time Israel has ever agreed to participate in a UN probe regarding the Israel Defense Forces … UN Secretary General Ban officially announced Israel’s participation in the international inquiry, calling it an ‘unprecedented development’ … Ban also announced those who are planned to head the UN inquiry, saying the ‘panel will be led by eminent personalities: former Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Geoffrey Palmer as Chair and the outgoing President of Colombia, Mr. Alvaro Uribe as Vice-Chair. The Panel will have two additional members, one each from Israel and Turkey. It will begin its work on 10 August and submit the first progress report by mid September’.”

Ban reportedly added that he hoped “the Panel will fulfill its mandate based on the Presidential Statement of the Security Council and with the fullest cooperation of the relevant national authorities of the two countries … It will also give me recommendations for the prevention of similar incidents in the future”… This is reported in Haaretz here.

The NYTimes further reports, a propos continued speculation about some kind of “deal” or other: that “Seif al-Islam Qaddafi, son of Libyan leader. Muammar Qaddafi, said in an interview with Ash-Sharq al-Awsat “that the Israelis ‘agreed to let Libya spend $50 million’ through the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees [UNRWA]. The money, he said, would be used ‘to support the Palestinians and for reconstruction, including allowing construction materials and prefabricated homes’ … A spokesman for the United Nations agency did not immediately comment”. This report is posted here.

This is all a bit mysterious, because Libya was always free to contribute as much as it liked to UNRWA, for the Palestinians, whenever it liked (though it probably did not do so, previously, up until now…)

Juan Cole has also posted on his blog, Informed Comment, an item reporting that “al-Quds al-Arabi reports in Arabic that the Qadhafi Foundation is maintaining that it extracted several concessions from Israel in return for diverting to the Egyptian port, including a pledge that travel abroad for treatment of ill Palestinians in Gaza would be expedited and reconstruction projects would be allowed to go forward (one in 8 Palestinians in Gaza had their homes destroyed in the 2008-2009 Israeli assault on the Strip.)”… This, published here, is also a bit mysterious…

Larry Derfner wrote today in his column for the Jerusalem Post that “Given the way Israel behaves now, it’s pretty sad to remember that it was envisioned as a country where the Jews ran their own national affairs – but nobody else’s. Now it’s not enough for Israel to have its own coast, its own territorial waters, its own airspace – no, we’ve got to control Gaza’s coast, Gaza’s territorial waters, Gaza’s airspace, too. The Gaza Strip is part of our sphere of influence. Let any Turkish ship, Libyan ship or any other ship we don’t like try to sail into Gaza, and they’ll get a taste of gunboat diplomacy, Israeli-style” …

The Larry Derfner article continued: “We fly spy planes over Lebanon on a daily basis. We blew up the beginnings of a nuclear reactor in Syria. We run the lives of two million Palestinians in the West Bank and take their land piece by piece. Why? Because might makes right. If anybody tried to blockade our coast and our airspace, if anybody flew spy planes over us, if anybody blew up one of our nuclear installations, if anybody ruled our lives at gunpoint and built foreign settlements on our land, we’d kill whoever we had to kill to stop it. But the Arabs are weak and we’re strong, so we get away with it … The Arabs want to destroy us, we say, that’s why we have to blockade this and bomb that and put up a new row of houses over there … All the Islamic countries are afraid of Israel, and for good reason – because this country is much stronger than all of them put together. We do things to the Palestinians, to Syria, to Lebanon and, reportedly, to Iran that we would never let anyone do to us in a million years – and they can’t stop us. They are extremely reluctant to even try; our military power deters them. So what more do we want from our enemies before we’ll stop screwing with them? Love? Recognition of the justice of the Zionist cause? An admission that they were wrong all these years and we were right? If that’s what we’re waiting for, we came to the wrong neighborhood. If we’re going to go on intercepting ships until their sponsors accept our right to keep Gaza under lock and key, we’re going to be engaged in gunboat diplomacy for a long time. If we think we can rule the West Bank Palestinians until they give up even nonviolent resistance, fly spy planes over Lebanon until Hizbullah agrees that we have the right to bear arms but it doesn’t, and bomb enemy nuclear sites until the whole Middle East acknowledges Israel as its sole, rightful nuclear power, then our future here is untenable. Maybe the United States and Russia can hold sway over their regions, maybe they can have spheres of influence, but a little Jewish state surrounded by 57 Muslim states cannot. Neither our enemies nor our friends will allow us to be a mini-empire, a hegemon, for long. That’s a recipe for escalating, never-ending conflict”. This commentary by Larry Derfner is published in the Jerusalem Post here.

Just as the plan indicated, the Amalthea, a Libyan-chartered Greek cargo ship carrying food and medicine destined for Gaza went to the Egyptian port of El-Arish, on the northern coast of the Sinai peninsula, east of the Suez Canal, and not very far from the Rafah crossing into the Gaza Strip.

The Amalthea is one of seven ships now moored off El-Arish, and it is expected to dock imminently.

However, until the last minute, officials of the Gadhafi charity which chartered the ship insisted that their destination was Gaza.

Haaretz has reported that for the final day of its trip, “Israeli naval vessels were shadowing and monitoring the Amalthea, which had been immobile for much of the night due to engine trouble. ‘We are not surrounding; we are following’, a military spokeswoman in Tel Aviv said … An Al-Jazeera correspondent aboard the ship said two of the Israeli ships were on the port side of the vessel, to prevent it from changing direction and sailing to Gaza”.

Haaretz also reported in the same article that Israel’s Prime Minister Dan Meridor told Israel Radio, “Anyone who wants to bring materials there which are not dangerous materials – munitions, etcetera – can bring them through El Arish, [or]can bring them through the [Israeli] port of Ashdod … What we want is to set the arrangement for inspections, so we can always check and not allow them to bust their way in,” Meridor said. This can be read in full here.

However, Hamas’ Ismail Haniyeh, who was Prime Minister of a couple of successive Hamas-dominated Palestinian Authority governments, following elections that Hamas won at the beginning of 2006 until mid-June 2007 [when Hamas military forces trounced Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security forces in Gaza, after which Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved a short-lived National Unity coalition government], continued to call for the Libyan-chartered Amalthea — and other “Flotillas” — not to divert, and to continue to head to Gaza, as did Jamal Khodairy, head of the Popular Committee to Break the Siege.

Earlier today, members of a Greek labor union affiliated with the Communist Party demonstrated at the El Al airlines counters at Athens airport in protest of the Amalthea’s — and Gaza’s — difficulties. Flights were reportedly delayed for about two hours until the demonstration dispersed.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority former minister for prisoner affairs, Ashraf Ajrami, wrote an op-ed published on Israel’s YNet website today saying that the recent post-Flotilla loosening of the Israeli sanctions against the Gaza Strip to allow more consumer goods to pass, was not enough, and further steps were needed — “Otherwise, global public opinion won’t change and the world will continue to say that Gazans face collective punishment and that the Strip faces a difficult, inhumane siege”. Ajrami wrote that “The Palestinian leadership cannot accept disconnection of Gaza from the West Bank and would not allow Israel to do it under any circumstances. In addition, and as opposed to what Israel wants, Hamas grows stronger because of the blockade. It grows rich via the smuggling of goods while also enjoying international interest in the Strip … Hamas is also becoming stronger thanks to the organizers of Gaza-bound flotillas. Indeed, not every person who arrives on those ships wishes to see peace in the region and an independent, prosperous Palestinian state. Some of them wish to express their support for Hamas, rather than for the Palestinian people. Meanwhile, an important part of flotilla organizers belong to Islamic Movements such as the Muslim Brothers. However, no Palestinian (and this is certainly true for the Palestinian leadership) can speak out against a movement that aims to show solidarity with the people. At the same time, it’s important for the Israeli people to know that while the Palestinian majority wishes the solidarity movement with Gazans to prompt the lifting of the siege, it is also interested in advancing a diplomatic process and in reaching a compromise with Israel. This is a Palestinian interest that is also an Israeli interest. The immediate move required of Isra]el is to open all the crossings that link the Gaza Strip to the West Bank, including the safe passage, to civilian movement. This would boost the Palestinian Authority, make the lives of Palestinians easier, weaken Hamas, and may stimulate a substantive diplomatic process”. This is posted here.

And, an Israeli delegation argued to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday and Wednesday that its naval blockade of Gaza’s maritime space is legitimate: “Under international law… a blockade can be imposed on the sea”, Israeli envoy Sari Rubenstein told the HRC. This is reported here.

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

Nigel Parry wrote a wry commentary criticizing the proposed [then cancelled] Iranian flotillas [and the postponed Lebanese flotillas], in which he said: “As if drawn from that bit about the Apocalypse found at the end of the Bible of Really Bad Ideas, Israel’s Most Wanted were not only going to send ships in the wake of the bloody IDF commando assault on the last aid vessels attempting to ease the siege on Gaza, but send ships with Iranian commandos no less … The move predictably sent Israel over the edge. IDF Chief of ‘Gabi Ashkenazi asserted that, ‘We cannot allow Gaza to become an Iranian port’ and the Associated Press wrote that, “Security officials said the prospect of an Iranian boat headed for Gaza had Israel deeply worried, and that naval commandos were training for the possibility of taking on a vessel with a suicide bomber on board’. Iran wasn’t the only one. Suddenly it seemed as if all of Israel’s enemies were planning to rent cruise ships, fill them up with flour and concrete, and ruin all our summers … Fortunately, for those of us who had summer plans other than being hunched over a computer fretting over yet another Israeli war during yet another American holiday season, Iran and Lebanon canceled. Even I—beach blanket and sunscreen at the ready—was ready to call those particular flotillas ‘a provocation’. Hossein Sheikholeslam, secretary general of the International Conference for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada—an Iranian body set up by parliament—announced that the aid flotilla would be canceled after Israel had ‘sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on that regime and it will confront it’. You think Hossein? It would have played straight into Israel’s current ‘Iran defense’, which consists of mentioning the words ‘Iran’ and ‘nuclear weapons’ as often and repeatedly as possible, every time a journalist or American politician strays within 10 feet … Which brings us to Libya, who also announced its own flotilla in the wake of Iran and Lebanon’s. The Libyan boat, whose arrival in Gaza is scheduled to be within the next 12 hours, is being sent by the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation, headed by Seif Al Islam Gaddafi, the son of Libya’s leader. Again, perhaps not the best idea, given regional tensions and history, and current Israeli spin … Everything about this whole affair—the Israelis, the Iranians, the Libyans, and the rest of us—is starting to seem like bad theater.  Bad theater in which only the Gazans continue to be excluded access to the auditorium in which the drama of their lives is acted out in front of the entire world”.  This was posted on mondoweiss, here, as well as on his own new website, here.

It could be headed to the Egyptian port of El-Arish, as it has apparently official listed as its destination, or to Israel’s Ashdod Port — or even to Gaza.

People associated either with the ship or with the Libyan aid group that chartered it have sounded accommodating and non-confrontational for days. Yet, as some Palestinians [in Gaza and in Jerusalem] — and others — encourage the ship to head to Gaza in defiance of Israel’s formal naval blockade, Israeli military officials have raised their tone as well.

UPDATE: The IDF spokesperson has just sent a tweet assuring that “Contrary to media reports, no ultimatum was issued to crew of Libyan boat by Israeli Navy … Rather, the Navy had emphasized that the boat could not be allowed to enter Gaza Port” A few hours earlier, the IDF sent these two tweets: “Israeli Navy has begun preparations to stop Libyan boat in case boat persists in trying to enter maritime closure area”. and “The Israeli Navy has initiated communication with the Libyan ship”. It is still not clear, but the boat appears to be turning slightly in the direction of El-Arish.

[A message which just arrived via SMS at about 2:30 pm Jerusalem time quoted foreign press reports as saying that the Israeli Navy has made contact with the Amalthea, and asked it to move towards El-Arish. This was also reported on Israel [Army?] Radio… At about 3:30 pm Jerusalem time, that it has begun the process of identification and communication with the ship.]

Whatever happens now will happen after midnight — most likely, as usual, around 03:30 or 04:00 or so in the morning, just before first light.

Go to this Live Ships map on the AIS Vessel Tracking and Position site, here.

On the upper left side of the page, under Ships Map, click on the third box ["Go to Vessel"], and choose Amalthea from the drop-down menu.

Then, use the zoom-in or zoom-out button to see what you want.

Military vessels are not identified on this map…]

The Egyptian port of El-Arish, is the Libyan ship’s declared destination.

Either El-Arish, or Ashdod Port in Israel, are apparently both all right for the Israeli Navy.

The Jerusalem Post has just reported that “One of the owners of the … Almathea headed towards Gaza said on Tuesday that if Israel will only allow the ship to dock in Ashdod instead of reaching Gaza, the crew will instead unload the humanitarian goods in the Egyptian port of El-Arish … ‘If this is the only option put forward by the Israeli authorities, we will choose to sail to the port of El-Arish and transfer the assistance by ground to Gaza’, Greek businessman Aleksei Angeolopoulos said in an interview with the Arabic newspaper Ashraq al-Awsat. Angeolopoulos continued, ‘I say to the Israeli authorities that the ship is carrying humanitarian aid and food and there are no weapons or prohibited materials, as claimed by Israel … If Israel wants, the Israeli navy is invited to board the ship and to search it so that they can see with their own eyes that it is only carrying food and allow it to continue to the port of Gaza’.” This is published here.

According to Israel’s Professor Ruth Lapidot, specialist in international law, only material or personnel that would aid Hamas in its “war effort” against Israel should be banned by the formal Israeli naval blockade. But, if Israel has a “suspicion”, it can take a look — and/or try to persuade the ship not to go to the blockaded area [and if the ship is not persuaded, Israel can attack, she says]. See our report on Professor Lapidot’s 16 June remarks at the JCPA here.

Meanwhile, in a just-published interview, Greta Berlin, Co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement [which sent 8 expeditions by sea from Cyprus towards Gaza, and which participated in the Freedom Flotilla expedition that was stopped at sea on 31 May] told Elias Harb that “We do not have any connection to the Libyan boat since we do not deal with governments who want to send boats. Our organization is made up of people from civil society (although we certainly take members of Parliament) who work civilian to civilian …we are going again sometime in the fall”. [n.b.- The Libyan aid organization that chartered the boat says it is not an official or government organization, even though it is headed by Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi's son].

Berlin said in the interview that there are now no passengers missing from the Freedom Flotilla: “everyone is accounted for. There are no passengers held in Ashdod. There are, however, five very seriously injured passengers still in hospital, two are not expected to live…making the count really 11 murdered”. This interview is published here.

Meanwhile, the entire Israeli Knesset has been debating today whether or not to strip Knesset member from Nazareth, Haneen Zoabi, of her parliamentary rights for having participated in the Freedom Flotilla. Zoabi was on board the large Turkish passenger ship, the Mavi Marmara, when it was boarded by Israeli commandos in the early morning hours of 31 May. The Jerusalem Post is reporting that, in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 television, Zoabi said “[The Knesset] has no idea what democracy is here. I represent my views, my party’s views, and the views of all the Arab members of the Knesset … you were supposed to defend my right to express my opinions’, and ‘protect me from racism which targeted me for my views. I stand not only for my peoples’ views, but for a global consensus’.” She also said in the interview that “the Libyan aid ship, which is currently bound for Gaza, proved that ‘there is a world consensus that the blockade of Gaza is illegitimate’.” This is published here.

UPDATE: The decision to strip Zoabi of her parliamentary privileges was adopted by a vote of 34-16.

Professor Ruth Lapidot, a former legal adviser to Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is one of — if not the – preeminent Israeli expert on international law [also known as public international law]. Her views are taken extremely seriously in official Israeli circles.

She recently [on 16 June] discussed Israel’s announced naval blockade of Gaza’s maritime space in a meeting with diplomats and journalists at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs [run by Israel's former Ambassador Dore Gold.

Some of the more interesting things she said are: Israel has declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza's coastline, in January 2009 [as we have reported here]. The area which is blockaded has to be clearly defined, and there has to be clear notification. The blockade must be applied without discrimination (though limited specific exceptions can be permitted).  Humanitarian assistance must be permitted — but not goods which may increase the war capacity of, in this case, Hamas.  If there is a suspicion that a ship is carrying arms or personnel to , in this case, Hamas, Israel may capture, visit, or search a ship that enters the blockaded zone, and can try to persuade them to leave. But, if a ship tries to run the blockade, there is a clear difference between how it is possible to treat a merchant ship (military force can be used) or a warship (only protests are allowed).

Those who oppose this blockade only say that it’s against international law, without saying why, Professor Lapidot said.

UPDATE: In a just-published interview, Greta Berlin of the Free Gaza movement said that “Israel has no right to stop us under international law UNLESS it wants to admit that it occupies Gaza. Since Israel says it no longer occupies Gaza and Gaza is free, they have no right to stop us. In addition, the blockade is collective punishment against a civilian population that is WAY out of line. International law, Amnesty International and the International Red Cross have all said the same thing. Israel’s blockade is illegal”… This is published here.

Professor Lapidot explained at the JCPA discussion that she believed Gaza is a sui generis entity, a special case. Because Gaza was never annexed by Israel, and because Israel does not control the entire territory of Gaza, she argued, it is not occupied. However, since Israel controls the air and sea space [criteria that many if not most other international law experts say are confirmation of an occupation], it has a special responsibility in case of accidents. She noted that the former Israeli Supreme Court head Justice Barak ruled that Israel also has a moral responsibility because it did previously occupy Gaza for so long.

The entire discussion was videotaped, and it is archived on the JCPA website, where it can be viewed  on the website of the JCPA  here. [Go to Institute for Contemporary Affairs, then on either sidebar click on video archive, then select this event]. Here are some excerpts:

Legal aspects of the problem of the blockade of Gaza:

“The situation between Israel + the Hamas is a situation of armed conflict – this is important because this means that the laws of war apply — which means you may control ships going to Gaza, even on the high seas — you may not do it in the territorial sea of third country… not in Cyprus, but on the high seas in time of conflict.

A blockade means that one state prohibits event the entry and exit of both neutral and enemy ships and airplanes to an area which must be defined.  You have to define very clearly what is this area – where are the borders of this area.

There are some other similar institutions in PIL [Public International Law] – there are also exclusion zones and security zones or war zones or neutral zones — on the sea, in laws of war, during time of conflict.
t
But, it was a blockade that was imposed by Israel on the shores of Gaza

What are the sources of the law on blockades?
Until this very day the rules are still customary international law (no international treaty deals with this problem)
A list of documents that mention blockades:
(1) 1856 Declaration of Paris on the Crimean war – but it has only a very short mention;
(2) 1909 London declaration on naval warfare — much more important, and detailed; there was an intention to codify this, but unfortunately the states that participated did not ratify it: so, this has remained a declaration and is not treaty.
Manuals: San Remo (prepared by an international group of expert), and those of the militaries of the UK, US, and Germany — all these manuals say this is binding customary law.

Concerning war on sea, the world still applies the general principles of laws of war (eg: there is a prohibition of starvation of civilians)

Conditions for legality or validity of a blockade
1.) Notification – it has to be declared and notified as clearly as possible to all those who might be affected (nowadays communications much easier)
2.) Effectiveness – a “paper blockade” is not valid: you have to apply and enforce, otherwise it will not be valid; this is a question of fact, there are no clear legal rules.
3.) You must ensure that you do not cut off access to the high seas of the territorial sea of a third state
4.) Equality – it has to be based on equality, applied to everybody in the same way, not just to some states — including Prime Ministers who might be on any of the ships.
5.)  You must permit the passage of humanitarian assistance. (The San Remo manual of 1994 says that you must permit humanitarian assistance, but state applying must decide where, when, and through which port the humanitarian assistance goes. There is the possibility to require that a neutral organization must control to whom the humanitarian assistance goes — eg ICRC, to see if the humanitarian assistant goes to civilians – or, in the case of Gaza, to Hamas)
6.) You may not starve the civilian population.

What can and may be done to ships trying to run the blockade?
A distinction is made between merchant ships (you have the right to capture, visit, search, and if they resist, you may even attack the ship) and warships (you may try to capture, and try to search but not attack a warship unless it is situation of self-defense)

When can you apply and in what kind of waters?  As soon as it is clear a certain ship intends to break the blockade, you can start to deal with it, even if it is on the high seas.

Precedents (modern – after World War Two):
(1) Korean war 1950-53
(2) Bangladesh – 1973, applied by India
(3) Iran-Iraq war – blockade on Shatt al-Arab
(4) There was also a blockade in the 2006 war between Israel and “the terrorists” in Lebanon (nevertheless Israel did give a safe passage between Lebanon and Cyprus for humanitarian assistance.)
[During the 2008 war between Russian and Georgia, there was some discussion - but it was not a real blockade, only a search of ships on the high seas, to look for contraband.]

Excerpts from the Question and Answer segment of the discussion at JCPA:

Q: States are reluctant, prefer to use softer term such as quarantine.  Iran-Iraq war – UNSC resolution prohibits arms therefore blockade and that naval presence in Indian ocean and Red Sea is still there but now to seek out members of al-Qaeda, or carrying weapons

A: Also 1962 quarantine of Cuba – it did not meet all qualifications of blockade

Q: Must a blockade be announced?

A: It has to be announced loudly and clearly to everybody who is involved. Even more, when a ship is trying to get though, you must make sure this specific ship has to have actual knowledge, or presumptive knowledge, of the blockade

Q:  Is Israel in full compliance?

A: Absolutely — I thought it was clear without even mentioning it — all these conditions [are met].  In January 2009, Israel made the notification to the whole world, and therefore we can say that this is a real blockade..

Q: Since the legality of this blockade rests on state of war between Israel and Hamas, doesn’t it mean requiring a full declaration of war?

A: In the past, yes, but nowadays there are wars that break out without declaration. There is no need for a declaration in order for there to be a state of war.  There was a judgment by [Israeli Supreme Court] President Aharon Barak five years ago [after Israel's "unilateral" disengagement] where he explained that the situation [between Israel and Gaza] is so bad that it is a situation of armed conflict.

Q: If it’s so clear, can you explain why do other international experts disagree”

A: This question is very interesting, because they never say why.  They only say that it’s illegal under international law, full stop. They do not say why…

Q: But the boarding was in international water?

A: In time of armed conflict you can search ships even on the high seas…

Q:  Even Israeli newspapers write this: seizing ships in international waters is a violation of international law. Other opinion writers say the laws of war do not apply to Gaza, because it is not a state.

A:  Can Gaza be considered an enemy even though it is not a state? You have things called international conflict.  Also, the laws of war apply to internal conflicts (Common Article 3 of all Geneva Convention gives the minimum that applies). With regard to the status of Gaza is the $64 million dollar question – it was under Ottoman sovereignty 1570-1917, then under Britain till 1948 (Who was sovereign? The most common position is that it was both Britain and the League of Nations0. Then Egypt never annexed, gave Gaza autonomy, but under occupation.   In [1956 and in] 1967, Gaza was occupied by Israel, but not annexed.  I would say it is an area sui generus, which means a special situation — this is the best description, because nobody knows exactly what it is, though others say it is self-governing.

Q: According to UNSC resolution 1860, Gaza is part of Palestinian territory, and that is why is is occupied, not because of “effective control”/

A:  part of other side, under occupation, under its control?  Yes, Gaza is part of Palestinian territory but so far there does not yet exist a Palestinian state, yet. It is a special area which hopefully one day will be part of a Palestinian state.

Q: Part of the notion of assigning a legal status is exactly what negotiations have been about…

A  In both 1993 and 1995 it was agreed that there would be negotiations, but so far negotiations have failed. The Road Map of 2003 specifically says Palestinian state should be established by agreement with Israel.

Q: Can you please explain again the difference in treatment accorded to a merchant ship + a war ship [attempting to break a blockade]

A:  When you see a ship is trying to go to Gaza you can stop it to see what’s going on and to persuade – but if a merchant ship continues you can attack it. If it is a warship, you can only protest…

Q: Whole notion of naval blockade is linked to this notion of sending humanitarian goods to the Gaza Strip “under seige”. What is Israel’s responsibility to this sui generus entity that has two entrances and exits – one via Israel and one via Egypt.

A: Absolutely right there are two ways  There is also the 2005 agreement to send goods through Egypt – so the idea was both Israeli and Rafah crossings should be open to the Palestinians.  There is a very interesting Supreme Court judgment on electricity [n.b. - this was handed down on 28 January 2008 in a case brought by GISHA] – that since the 2005 evacuation, Israel has no responsibility to supply, because in particular there is also Egypt — but because has been in control of Gaza for so many years, Israel has a moral responsibility to help the people of Gaza get what they need for their daily lives.

Q: Is the EU participating in the siege [on the land crossings into Gaza]?

A:  There is no siege now, because Gaza is getting a lot of goods from Israel. Now, even cement goes in (but via the port of Ashdod and with control by independent group to ensure aid goes to civilians, not Hamas). Let me remind you that even during the war of 2008, the border open every day for 1.5 hours…We shouldn’t forget the good things Israel has done.

Q: If Israel had allowed any of the ships in the Flotilla to go it, what would have happened to blockade?

A: The state that applies the blockade can make exceptions. But if all ships are allowed in, then there is no blockade.  But if the state imposing blockade gives certain ships special selected permission — or if ship is in distress — it is ok.  But it should not be the rule, exceptions should not be permanent … Israel may control any ships if there is a suspicion they carry goods which may increase the war capacity of Hamas — the suspicion they are carrying arms or personnel to help Hamas. I think other materials may not justify intervention against the ships. Not all goods justify this search — there must be a real suspicion.  And not all ships on high seas, without any reason…
…
Q: If Gaza is a sui generis territory, what does it mean if it is occupied?

A:  … Gaza’s status is, again, undecided. Some say if Israeli still in control of air space or sea, or territory, then it is occupying. Other opinions say that according to the Hague 1907 regulations – an occupier is only occupier if it controls the whole territory. And Israel does not control the whole territory of Gaza. In my opinion, Israel is not in control of Gaza, therefore we are the occupier, but in the areas it controls [air and sea of Gaza] there Israel is responsible (if there is an accident, eg) … In my opinion, the distinction is between full control of territory, or only part of it.
…
Justice Barak said there is an international conflict and not an internal conflict with Gaza, because it is not part of Israel.  Gaza has never been annexed by Israel, neither has the West Bank …
…
Q:  So, customary international law says that after a search of merchant boat, or there is attempt to capture it –  and it continues — at what point can it be attacked and sunk if it carries civilians or civilian goods?

A.  The idea is to get control of the ship and not to drown it…”

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

This entire discussion can be viewed on the JCPA website here. [Go to Institute for Contemporary Affairs, then on either sidebar click on video archive, then select this event.]