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 Ashkenazi also showed previously unpublished video of the raid which included images of three wounded Israeli commandos dragged to a lower deck and held by activists.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.

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.

“This is a mother describing to us her daughter, 9-year-old Sammah [Eid El-Massry]as she came in to her home at 4pm after the Israeli army reportedly shelled and fired four bombs into and around a residential area in Beit Hanoun, Northern Gaza:  ‘She came in through and it wasn’t clear she was injured. Suddenly a lot of blood came from her nose and she vomited. All of the family saw this – her little brothers were very scared. She had just been playing in the front of the house’ … . She is now in a semi-critical condition in hospital, suffering extensive blood loss and very low haemoglobin. She was hit by shrapnel and ‘flechettes’ from a nail bomb that landed 100m away, causing internal bleeding to the chest, severe head trauma and nails embedded in her body … The doctor told us she was in a ‘semi-critical’ condition with severe chest, head and abdominal pain. Her blood-loss was a major concern, arriving at the hospital with 7.5 haemoglobin levels, 4-6 below the normal levels, the problem exacerbated by the fact that she, like three of her brothers, already suffered from a blood condition known as Thalassemia for which the drug Exjade is in extremely short supply due to the Israeli blockade. She was clearly in pain and confused, trying to remove the nasal tubes. Her mother showed us the bandages on her chest.  ‘She was in a very bad condition when she arrived – it’s difficult for children and very traumatic to insert a chest tube. Very painful. Blood was mainly coming from the chest. We will have to perform surgery and we will further explore her abdominal pain’, the doctor tells us.  This is not the first time the family was attacked, Sammah’s 4-year-old brother Ryad Eid El-Massry was injured during Operation Cast Lead” …

[And now, following the attack on Wednesday, there were two more children from the same family who were also injured and receiving treatment in the hospital] Azzam Mohammed El-Massry (aged 11) has a severely fractured left elbow and Ebrahim Wasseem El-Massry (aged 4) has light injuries to his abdomen …
]
[The fourth wounded child isHaitham Thaer Qasem, a four year old boy and a first and only child. He was sleeping on the hospital bed, occasionally gasping for breath through the strapping around his nose. He had suffered deep nasal trauma, and flechette darts from the nail bomb were still embedded in his tiny body, where they had pierced his back, right elbow and right leg. He was 200m from the impact of the bomb.  In his hospital ward his mother was standing to one side crying quietly …

Two young men were killed: Mohammad Al-Kafarneh, 23, from severe shrapnel injuries in his back and chest and Kasim Al-Shinbary, 19, caused by injuries from nails embedded in his skull and shrapnel wounds to the back.  It was unclear earlier whether they were resistance fighters or if they were civilians”.

All of them – the two dead young men, and the four injured children – are they all “militants”?

This was published by the ISM here.

Mohammad Abu-Tir, perhaps the most senior of four East Jerusalem Palestinian men facing “deportation”, is facing expulsion on Sunday 18 July.

An Associated Press report said that the “IPU brings together lawmakers from 155 countries. The U.S. Congress isn’t a member”. This is published here.

The IPU said that deportation would violated the human rights of Palestinian parliamentarians Mohammed Abu Tir, Mohammed Totah and Ahmed Abu Atoun, who were were recently released from prison after serving four-year sentences, for their affiliation to Hamas. A fourth East Jerusalem Palestinian parliamentarian elected in 200, Khalid Abu Arafeh, is also facing deportation.

One question now is what is the IPU going to do to follow-up?

And what will it do if one or more of the deportations are carried out?

Incongruously, the Jerusalem Post reported that “Muhammad Abu Tir will be released from detention and exiled from the country next Sunday, if he can post bail of NIS 50,000. He is also required to post NIS 100,000 self-bail and NIS 100,000 third-party bail. Abu Tir was imprisoned for refusing to leave Jerusalem after Interior Minister Eli Yishai invalidated his Jerusalem residence permit”… This report is posted here.

So, if he can’t come up with that huge amount of money, he gets to stay in jail? In Jerusalem?

Two days earlier, the Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian Affairs correspondent by Khaled Abu Toameh reported that “Abu Tir was first arrested in 1974 and sentenced to 16 years in prison for security-related offenses. He was released 13 years later. In 1989 he was arrested for a second time, this time on charges of possession of weapons. He was sentenced to 13 months in prison.  Between 1990 and 2005 he spent eight years in prison on charges of membership in the armed wing of Hamas and trading in weapons”. This report can be read in full here.

The Voice of America’s correspondent in Geneva, Lisa Schlein, reported Thursday night that “the Committee says Israel has given the MPs the choice of renouncing their membership in the Palestinian Legislative Council or of facing deportation from East Jerusalem, the city of their birth. The committee says this is in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention”.   Her report is posted here.

Not much is clear about what’s happening.

But, deportation is a violation of the Road Map. Is Israel going to go ahead and deport Abu Tir when George Mitchell is here?

According to an IPU press release, the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) has just concluded an examintion of “public cases concerning 122 legislators in 21 countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Ecuador, Eritrea, Iraq, Lebanon, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Palestine/Israel, Philippines, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Turkey and Zimbabwe … The IPU assists legislators in representing their constituents freely and effectively. In 1976, it set up the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, which has since examined cases in over 100 countries and has often helped those under threat obtain protection or reparation. This can take various forms, such as the release of a detained parliamentarian, reinstatement of an MP to parliament, an inquiry into attacks, prosecution of the perpetrators of such crimes and payment of compensation”. This is posted here.

[The Interparliamentary Union asked the Knesset speaker for clarification of the Knesset committee recommendation withdraw parliamentary privileges from MK Haneen Zoabi in June (she was on board the Mavi Marmara, sailing to Gaza, when the Israeli naval assault occurred on 31 May, and for that she has been called a "traitor"), and the IPU also expressed concerns about the death threats to Zoabi and about the pending censure, but did not seem to have anything to say after the plenary vote to punish Zoabi this week.]

Israeli warships are reportedly tracking the Amalthea. The Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak earlier called this expedition “provocative”. Israeli military officials say that the cargo this ship is carrying is redundant, because these materials are now entering Gaza relatively freely via Israeli-controlled crossings. However, there are still logistical limitations.

Although Israeli officials continue to be suspicious about the ship — and there have been contradictory claims about the intended destination coming from various people involved with the Libyan aid group that hired the ship and from some of their supporters — they say that as things appear at the moment there does not appear to be any security threat involved. However, they say, they are watching, and will be taking no chances.

The Amalthea appears to have turned off its transponder in recent hours… Or, according to some reports, the ship’s communications are being jammed, and the ship is surrounded by 8 Israeli warships.

Interesting — on the Live Ships map at the Marine Traffic website here, there are now NO ships at all shown from the Suez canal up to Beirut — how is that possible?

UPDATE: At about 10:30 this morning Jerusalem time, SMS reports from Israeli sources indicate that the Amalthea has begun to move toward Egypt…

UPDATE TWO: By about noon in Jerusalem, the Amalthea was back on the Live Ships map, and moving in the direction of El-Arish. It is now 32 nautical miles away from the Egyptian port in the northern Sinai, not far from the Rafah crossing in and out of Gaza — about 4 hours away, at the ship’s present speed of 7.5 knots…

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs [MFA] website has a post citing “A report published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center [that] claims that the sole mission of the Libyan foundation responsible for sending out this ship to Gaza is to ‘break the siege’. According to the published findings, the Libyans intend to pressure Israel to agree to allow the entrance of goods into the Gaza Strip according to the ‘rules of the game’ determined by Hamas. In addition, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center report shows that there are political considerations behind the Libya-sponsored flotilla, as Libya is interested in strengthening its position within the Arab League” … This MFA post is published here.

The Israeli MFA post also cites the U.S. State Department briefing in Washington on Tuesday 13 July [which can be consulted in full here] in which U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley tells journalists: “We are conscious of the fact that there is a Libyan aid ship en route to Gaza as we speak, and that we, along with our partners in the Quartet, urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected by the Government of Israel and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. We have urged the Libyan Government to avoid unnecessary confrontations. We call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza.”

The Jerusalem Post’s Defense Correspondent Yaakov Katz reports today that Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has claimed, in an interview on Israel Radio’s “This Morning” program, that “calls by the US and the European Union to the ship’s captain to accept Israel’s diversion requests legitimizes Israel’s policy”…

A few months after Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Foreign Ministry (MFA) offered a briefing to journalists on its response to criticisms about the Gaza war. Despite the nicely-air-conditioned auditorium, five journalists came.

Some days before that, the MFA offered a similar briefing on the same topic to the diplomatic corps. I was told that five diplomats attended….

Now, Israel’s YNet website has reported that “Weeks before the Gaza-bound flotilla left port, at the end May, 2010, the Israeli government was aware of the problem and the potential whiplash. Israel’s Defense Ministry, under Ehud Barak, worked out plans to enforce the blockade and apprehend the ships; Israel’s Foreign Ministry was responsible for PR and the legal justification for stopping the flotilla”…

The YNet article continued: “According to Israeli government sources, journalists were ‘unofficially’ referred to a Danish government report on IHH, US court and CIA documents several days prior to the arrival of the flotilla. ‘Unofficially?’ Why not officially? Why wasn’t the IHH thoroughly exposed and the Turkish government held responsible? According to the Australian-based Talk Gaza organization, which provides information on the incident, Israel’s Foreign Ministry circulated information on IHH ‘to some people at least five days before the incident’. ‘Some people?’ Who? Why not circulate it to everyone? ‘A number of journalists were also referred by various official sources to the few news articles that did discuss IHH days before the incident’. How many journalists? And when? Was the FM staff overloaded, understaffed, or simply unaware of the magnitude of the problem? Asked why a press conference wasn’t called before the engagement at sea, this journalist was told: ‘No one would come’.” This is posted here.

Our first report on the composition of the Freedom Flotilla and what might happen was published on 6 May, in our post entitled “Can Turkish involvement help Free Gaza – Freedom Flotilla challenge Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza?”, which is published here.

Yesterday, as we noted, YNet reported — after some journalists were briefed by Gen. Eiland — that “The report adds that the IDF had begun preparing for the flotilla in February. In mid-May Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak requesting their cooperation in order to prevent a violent incident“. This is published here.

Nevertheless, the Eiland report, released last night — which focuses on the IDF — stated that “The expert team determined that regarding media relations, the preparations made in advance were good. However, [n.b. - here the report seems to be referring to the period after the Israeli naval assault at sea] the release of press statements and visual materials was delayed due to the need to maintain reliability, the obligation to notify the families of the critically injured soldiers and the long authorization process at the levels above the IDF Spokesperson Unit [who does this mean?]. The team noted with favor the work of the IDF spokesperson following the incident and emphasized the need for better coordination between the IDF, the foreign ministry and other foreign affairs institutions?…

As we noted here on 26th May — five days before the interception of the Freedom Flotilla, in a post entitled “Israel lining up options to deal with Freedom Flotilla” — we asked: “there are reports of Turkish-Israeli contacts, and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs calls this big operation a ‘publicity stunt’. (Do you use military force against a publicity stunt?)”

We also reported in the same post that “Yesterday, the Israeli MFA sent around a message saying that one of its legal experts, Sarah Weiss Maudi said: ‘The reason why ships can’t come into Gaza currently is because a maritime blockade is currently in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such a blockade has been imposed by Israel because Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza. Hamas has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel proper with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza by various routes, including the sea. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no vessels can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian vessels and enemy vessels. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate the maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law, and may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea’. Is there an ‘armed conflict at sea’ – at least until now? Weiss Maudi is, the MFA says, the ministry legal expert on maritime and humanitarian law — but she is very young. No senior Israeli government official has spoken so clearly, publicly, on these matters. She duly notes ‘the requirement to give due notice’ of the blockade, and to ‘publicize the existence of the maritime blockade in effect’ — and, she says, Israel has ‘published the exact coordinates of the blockade via the accepted international professional maritime channel’. (See the Youtube video starting at 1′16″.) IDF spokespersons refused to return my calls recently, when I asked for confirmation that its naval blockade of Gaza still exists. Other Israeli government spokespersons have appeared, generally, to evade this issue, and have appeared to make efforts to refrain from calling it a naval blockade” This post is published here.

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.]

According to Haaretz, Eiland told journalists after he delivered the report that “mistakes made at the relatively top levels that caused the results to be different from what was planned”. The Haaretz story is posted here.

The Eiland report was commissioned by the IDF – and it focused only on the military aspects of the operation.

The Jerusalem Post reported, however, that “Eiland slammed the Navy for not preparing a ‘Plan B’ for the operation and should have reconsidered rappelling commandos onto the Mavi Marmara’s upper deck after noticing from sea and air that there were several dozen activists on board prepared to violently resist”. According to the JPost, Eiland said that “the Navy did not have technology that would have enabled it to stop the ship ahead of the operation without putting soldiers on board its upper deck to take control of the bridge … During their work, members of Eiland’s panel met with a number of officials who offered ideas how to stop the ship without boarding it. According to the committee, it is possible to develop such a capability but it will take approximately two years. Since the flotilla, the Navy has met with a number of companies and is pursuing technology that could be used to stop a ship in the future”.

A Libyan-chartered, Moldovan-flagged cargo ship has just left Greece and is now near Crete, on its way towards Gaza now. However, officials from the Libyan aid group say they do not want to provoke Israel, and have variously said they are either prepared to go to El-Arish, or let Israel inspect the cargo, or whatever… Needless to say, this expedition is being tracked by the Israeli Navy and other services.

The JPost said that “Eiland’s probe also found that shots were initially fired at the boarding commandos from weapons that the passengers likely had prepared before hand. The slug that was dislodged from the knee of one of the soldiers was of a different caliber than that which is used by the Navy”.

The JPost reported that Eiland “detailed the events that led to the abduction of three commandos, who were thrown from the upper to the lower deck and were only recovered about 40 minutes later after they were spotted standing wounded on the ship’s bow and surrounded by a number of passengers. The Navy commandos opened fire from above, scared off the passengers enabling two of the wounded to jump into the water. The third, who was severely wounded, was then rescued by other commandos who jumped down to the bow from the upper deck”. This can be read in full here.

The YNet website said that according to the report “the IDF had begun preparing for the flotilla in February. In mid-May Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi sent a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak requesting their cooperation in order to prevent a violent incident”. This is published here.

Nine people [8 Turkish men and an American-born high school student of Turkish origin] were killed on board the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish-chartered passenger ship carrying over 600 passengers and crew that was sailing towards Gaza when it was intercepted by the Israeli Navy in the pre-dawn hours of 31 May for attempting to breach the formal Israeli naval blockade of Gaza.

Only a limited edition of the full report was made public, apparently.

According to the IDF spokespersons site, the Eiland report made these observations:
“In terms of the intelligence effort, the team concluded that not all possible intelligence gathering methods were fully implemented and that the coordination between Navy Intelligence and the Israel Defense Intelligence was insufficient. At the same time, the team emphasized that it is not certain that an optimal intelligence effort would create a complete intelligence picture. The team also pointed out that the anticipated level of violence used against the forces was underestimated.

“In terms of situation assessments towards the flotilla, the team clarified that the operation relied excessively on a single course of action, albeit a probable one, while no alternative courses of action were prepared for the event of more dangerous scenarios.

“Regarding technological alternatives, the team determined that on the day of the incident, decision makers were not presented with alternative operational courses of action other than a full boarding of the flotilla. The team emphasized the fact that as far as is currently known, no country in the world holds the ability to stop a vessel at sea in a non hostile manner. Therefore statements made on this matter following the incident are unfounded and irresponsible. At the same time, the team determined that alternative courses of action could have existed had the process of preparation begun enough time in advance, and recommended to accelerate the process of examining alternative methods.
…
“In terms of operation command, the team determined that the location of the commanders during the incident and the presence of the Commander of the Israel Navy at sea during the operation [n.b. - right next to the Mavi Marmara], was proper and fit with the Chief of the General Staff’s view regarding the role of commanders at the front lines of IDF activity. His presence proved effective in terms of the decision making process, saving lives and more. The team praised the Israel Navy combat protocols, the preparations of the Naval Commando Unit, the Navy Command, the Electronic Warfare Formation and the medical evacuation.

“The team determined that the Navy Commando soldiers operated properly, with professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness and that the commanders exhibited correct decision making. The report further determines that the use of live fire was justified and that the entire operation is estimable” … This is posted here.

The Eiland report noted that “regarding media relations, the preparations made in advance were good. However, the release of press statements and visual materials was delayed due to the need to maintain reliability, the obligation to notify the families of the critically injured soldiers and the long authorization process at the levels above the IDF Spokesperson Unit. The team noted with favor the work of the IDF spokesperson following the incident and emphasized the need for better coordination between the IDF, the foreign ministry and other foreign affairs institutions”.

It said nothing about the confiscation — and use — by the IDF of equipment and produced materials belonging to journalists and their media organizations, which has not been returned.

UPDATE: The Turkish publication Today’s Zaman published a short piece with some Turkish reaction to the Eiland report. It said that “The Israeli military has failed to take responsibility for the deaths of nine activists including eight Turkish citizens, in its inquiry report on the deadly attack on the Mavi Marmara aid ship on May 31. ‘If the report really says that they did not have the adequate intelligence, obviously they are lying’, Sedat Laçiner, from the International Strategic Research Organization (USAK), told Today’s Zaman … He added that the Israeli army’s claim of inadequate intelligence is not persuasive at all. ‘Well, as someone who lives in Ankara, I was able to contact the Mavi Marmara and able to ask them how the situation was. They told me that there was a group of people on the ship, preparing sticks to use against Israeli soldiers if they tried to intercept them. If I knew that, sure Israel knew about it, too’, he said”. The same article also reported that “Nihat Ali Özcan of the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey (TEPAV) said if the Israel is really claiming that it had inadequate intelligence, this means it does not know anything about the changing characteristics of conflicts and should urgently replace its analysts. ‘Recent developments in the world tell us that if you confront a group, you have to learn their conflict culture, not their physical capacity. The passengers of the ship were from a civil society organization, but not a Norwegian-style [one]‘.” This report is published here.

UPDATE: The court postponed the case again, until Wednesday.

Abu Tir and three other men, all elected in January 2006 to the Palestine Legislative Council (PLC), are facing — for this — what is being called “deportation” from Jerusalem, though to where is not clear.

Abu Tir served over four years in jail for this reason, and was released about six weeks ago.

After that, the Israeli Police summoned him and his three colleagues — all Palestinian East Jerusalemites elected to the PLC in the last elections in 2006 — and confiscated their Jerusalem ID cards.

Then, Abu Tir was arrested near his house for not having an ID, and for “trying to enter the State of Israel illegally”.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has been trying to broker one kind of solution — in which Abu Tir and three others who were elected (in Israeli-approved elections, on what I have recently heard was also an Israeli-approved list of candidates running on the Hamas-affiliated Change + Reform Party) would formally renounce  Hamas.

This may be too much to ask…even if we leave aside all the questions of (1) how the PLC has been unable to meet for years due to a lack of a quorum because Israel arrested most of the Change + Reform party MPs in the West Bank, or of (2) how the term of the PLC that was elected in January 2006 is considered to have expired in January 2010, or even of  (3) what exactly is meant by “Jerusalem”, or (4) by “deportation”.

This  may be too much to ask… though not necessarily because of these men’s loyalty to Hamas, which may or may not have eroded over time.

This may be too much to ask… because it is too transparently and embarassingly partisan, and fundamentally undemocratic.

Deportation, as we have written before, is a violation of fundamental human rights, international humanitarian law, the Oslo agreements between the P.L.O. and Israel (as Abu Mazen said in his Mihraj speech at Ramallah’s Cultural Palace a few days ago) — AND it is a specific violation of the Road Map.

Are George Mitchell, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama paying any attention?

Reports indicated, Saturday evening, that the ship had just sailed.

The voyage for this ship from Greece to Gaza is estimated to take about 80 hours.

However, Israel’s YNet website has reported that “the Greek government said it had reached an agreement with the crew according to which the ship would not try to reach the Hamas-ruled territory”. The YNet story added that the Israeli Navy will track the vessel throughout its voyage, and that an IDF officer said Saturday night: “Any deviation from the original course, which will lead the ship to Gaza, will be blocked by the Navy … In case those on board fail to follow our instructions to stop and allow the Navy vessels to escort them, we will not hesitate to employ other methods to stop them.” This is reported here.

The ship was chartered to deliver some 2000 tons of food and medical aid on behalf of the Gadhafi International Charity and Development Association, headed by Libyan leader Muammar Ghaddafi’s son, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi.

Food and medicine are items which should not, at least theoretically, be on the Israeli lists of what it bans from entering Gaza. But there is a problem with some “dual-use” items which could, theoretically at least, also be used in making weapons.

Israel has just published a list based, it said, on a list agreed by some 40 nations, supplemented with extra items prohibited in specific Israeli “internal legislation” — including an unspecified number of military orders drawn up by the Israeli military’s Central Command.

According to the report in Haaretz, written by Barak Ravid, Israeli Foreign Ministry officials said the ship “would dock at Egyptian port el-Arish rather than the Gaza strip”. This is published here.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak “met Saturday with Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman and discussed the Libyan flotilla that was set to arrive in the Gaza Strip. The two discussed the possibilities of the aid ship being accepted at the Egyptian port of El Arish”. This is posted here.

These are strong and concerted steps by two men who were at each other’s throats a week ago over fallout from the fiasco of the Israeli naval assault on the Freedom Flotilla at sea on 31 May which left nine men dead on board a large Turkish-chartered passenger ship, the Mavi Marmara. [Lieberman accused Barak of leaking news of a meeting that Lieberman had not been informed about between the Turkish Foreign Minister and Israeli Minister Benyamin [Fouad] Ben Eliezar].

Alternatively, an Associated Press report on Israel’s YNet website indicates, somewhat surprisingly, that according to the Libyan charity’s “head volunteer”, Adburaufel Jaziri, the group is prepared to let Israel check the cargo: “Israel ‘can check our cargo and certificates, of course they are free to do this’,” Jaziri said. ‘If we cannot deliver the aid, we will let (Israel) deliver it … Our job is to help anyone who needs it. We don’t care if they are Catholics or Muslims or whatever. Now we are helping the people of Gaza who are suffering”.

YNet added that “The Israeli military would not comment on the Libyan ship. Israel’s policy has been to offer ships of this type the option of docking at an Israeli port, after which Israel will screen the goods aboard and transfer them into Gaza by land”. [According to this AP report, there will only be 27 people on board [15 volunteers, almost all Libyan, and a 12-member crew from several countries] not hundreds, or thousands…] This YNet report is published here.

This was something that neither the Free Gaza movement, nor the coalition of groups on board the Freedom Flotilla, were prepared to allow.

These reported remarks from the Libyan charity “head volunteer” are yet another indication that Israel’s Naval blockade of Gaza is quietly gaining international agreement.

There was no public challenge to Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip when it was first announced during the Gaza war.

Now, to cover all its bases, Israel has written letter to the highest UN official and its two most significant bodies in which it discusses, perhaps for the first time [I stand to be corrected, if wrong -- but I don't think I am], Israel’s formal declared naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Haaretz reported today that the Israeli ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev, wrote a letter on Friday to UN Secretary General BAN KI-Moon, which she also copied to the current President of the UN Security Council [Ambassador Joy Ogwu of Nigeria, during the month of July] and to the President of the current [64th] UN General Assembly [who just happens to be Libya's former Foreign Minister, Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki] saying that “Israel calls upon the international community to exert its influence on the government of Libya to demonstrate responsibility and prevent the ship from departing to the Gaza Strip … Israel reserves the right under international law to prevent this ship from violating the existing naval blockade on the Gaza Strip”. In the letter, Shalev further urged the international community “to discourage their nationals from taking part in such action,” adding that Israel “expects the international community to ensure that this ship does not sail.” This report is published here.

However, Haaretz, which should know better, wrote — incorrectly — that “Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza in 2007 following a bloody Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. Israel recently eased the terms of the land blockade on the territory, following a deadly raid of a Turkish aid ship, but the naval blockade has so far remained in place”. [This was published here].

This shows how the imprecise use of the term “blockade” has confused the situation.

Many have used the word to mean all of what was happening in Gaza, following an Israeli government decision in September 2007 [less than 3 months after the Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Preventive Security Services in Gaza] to declare Gaza an “enemy entity” or “hostile territory”. The Israeli Ministry of Defense was charged with implementing this government decision, and decided to impose progressively-tightened sanctions at Israel’s land crossings into Gaza.

The Free Gaza movement began in August 2008 to sail ships to “break the siege” on Gaza.

The Israeli government response was divided and chaotic. To deter the Free Gaza expeditions, the Israeli Navy announced, in a Notice to Mariners in mid-2008, that it would stop and search any ships entering Gaza’s maritime space. But, the top “political echelon” in Israel [which includes the Defense Minister] decided to ignore the first couple of Free Gaza expeditions, so as not to give them any “propaganda victory”. The not-quite-identical “political echelon” that is in place now in Israel said, before the Freedom Flotilla set sail for Gaza at the end of May, again said that this expedition was a mere propaganda ploy — but they also made it clear in advance that they were planning to stop the Freedom Flotilla from sailing to Gaza by all available means, including military force.

Even after the start of the IDF’s unprecedented Operation Cast Lead [27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009], the Free Gaza movement launched a sea expedition from Cyprus to Gaza that was rammed at sea on 30 December by Israeli naval vessels, and had to limp into a Lebanese port for repairs.

On 3 January 2009, as the Israeli Army began its feared ground offensive into the Gaza Strip [with its 1.5 million souls, it is one of the most-densely populated parts of the planet], the Israeli government announced a formal naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, essentially covering Gaza’s maritime space as defined in a map, which we have published several times on this blog here, and which is attached to the Oslo Accords.

As if nothing had changed — perhaps because they saw no Israeli effort to publicize or explain its naval blockade — the Free Gaza movement launched a second expedition by sea, well into the course of Operation Cast Lead. Confronted by the Israeli Navy, this ship gave up and returned to Cyprus without damage, in order to “save lives”. A Free Gaza spokesperson told me at the time: “We had no choice”.

Four months or so later, in June 2009, the last Free Gaza expedition left Cyprus and sailed for Gaza. They were intercepted, boarded, and forced to Ashdod Port, where those aboard were detained for over a week before being deported from Israel.

A formal naval blockade is quite different than what was happening at Israel’s land crossings into the Gaza Strip. A naval blockade has a specific status in international law.

For decades, however, there has been a diversity of attitudes in Israeli political echelons towards international law — and many of those attitudes were simply dismissive.

This is perhaps one of the explanations for Israel’s failure — until the Freedom Flotilla appeared on the horizon — to publicize or explain its formal naval blockade.

Questions I sent to the IDF spokespersons’ “new media” department a week ago are also still unanswered…

It interesting to see that the Israeli Ambassador’s letter to the UN officials and bodies states, according to Haaretz, that because “Israel has taken upon itself the responsibility of ensuring the transfer of humanitarian aid into the Palestinian territory”, then “The declared intentions of this [Libyan] mission are even more questionable and provocative given the recent measures taken by Israel to ensure the increase of humanitarian aid flowing into the Gaza Strip”.

In a similar vein, YNet reported that Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Andy David said that “Humanitarian aid is allowed into Gaza through land crossings and the Israeli government had increased the flow of goods into the Palestinian territory last week … ‘All humanitarian aid goes in freely, therefore the Libyan intention is nothing more than a cheap provocation’, he said”.

Showing how on-message the Israeli government appears to be, YNet reported on Saturday night that “Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the Libyan aid vessel’s journey an ‘unnecessary provocation’, and suggested that the ship allow Navy vessels to escort it to Ashdod Port ‘or sail directly to El-Arish Port’.” This YNet story can be read in full here.