According to one adviser to UNRWA, the vote count has been revised to 114 votes in favor [not just 107, as was reported yesterday]… But, because my internet was down from morning till evening [apparently, a Washington Post blog reports that it was a hostile attack on Palestinian servers, and affected both the West Bank and Gaza], I haven’t had a chance to check who, how, or why…

A Swedish diplomat expressed shock and more at Sweden’s negative vote, in a conversation with a friend on the terrace of the Ambassador Hotel this evening.

A UN person said that he believes France’s decision to vote yes is because of the recent Tunisian vote, with an Islamist party taking the overwhelming majority, as well as changes in the air in Morocco and Algeria.

Personally, I think the explanation for the French “yes” is that UNESCO is based in the French capital Paris [where it would likely have received a rather mixed reception], and France is UNESCO host country…

Daniel Levy writes on FP’s Middle East Channel here that “France has stated that it would support Palestine at the UNGA but not at the UNSC”.

Yes, this is also a good explanation — it is, in so many words, indeed what French President Sarkozy said in his speech at the UNGA High Level Debate in September, before Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas formally filed the Palestinian “UN bid” for full membership via the Security Council.

If you extrapolate a bit more widely, you could postulate, from factoring in the UNESCO vote, that France will support Palestine everywhere but in the UN Security Council …

What is clear is that the Europeans don’t have a common position, at least not yet — though I still suspect one may firm up by the time we come to the UNSC vote on the Palestinian vote. A common European position to abstain will mean that the Palestinian request will fail to get the necessary number of votes to pass — so the U.S. will not be obliged to exercise its veto power, as threatened. This is a slightly more gentle way of deferring the Palestinian request, and telling them to “come back later”.

Here on the terrace of the Ambassador Hotel in [East] Jerusalem, the consensus is that Saudi Arabia will pay any deficit in UNESCO’s budget due to the near-instantaneous U.S. announcement that it is withholding a $60 million payment in November.

But who will make up the shortfalls in funding to the Palestinian Authority? The U.S. has already — and since August — withheld some $200 million in money earmarked for USAID projects in the West Bank, in anticipation of the Palestinian “UN bid”. Now, again today, the Israeli government has once more decided, in response to the UNESCO vote, to suspend transfer of tax money collected on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. The Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday night that Palestinian presidential spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh said that “The talk about freezing tax revenues belonging to the Palestinian Authority is a provocation and theft of our money … We call on the Quartet and the US administration to put an end to these practices, which will have a negative impact on the whole region”. This JPost report is published here.

Meanwhile, the estimable Craig Murray [a former career diplomat and former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, who now calls himself simply a "human rights activist"] has written here on his blog that, as a result of the UNESCO vote yesterday, “Palestine is now a state. Membership of the United Nations is not in international law a pre-condition of statehood, and indeed is not compulsory for states. The existence of states not members of the UN is recognised in international law, not least by the UN itself. Palestine has just joined UNESCO for example under a provision which allows states which are not members of the United Nations to join if they get qualified majority support – which Palestine overwhelmingly did. So the UNESCO membership is crucial recognition of Palestine’s statehood, not an empty gesture. With this evidence of international acceptance, there is now absolutely no reason why Palestine cannot, instantly and without a vote, join the International Criminal Court. Palestine can now become a member of the International Criminal Court simply by submitting an instrument of accession to the Statute of Rome, and joining the list of states parties … There is an extremely crucial point here: if Palestine accedes to the Statute of Rome, under Article 12 of the Statute of Rome, the International Criminal Court would have jurisdiction over Israelis committing war crimes on Palestinian soil. Other states parties – including the UK – would be obliged by law to hand over indicted Israeli war criminals to the court at the Hague”…

As was pointed out in the comments section on this Craig Murry post, “On 22 January 2009, the Palestinian National Authority lodged a declaration with the [ICC] Registrar here, under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute which allows States not party to the Statute to accept the Court’s jurisdiction”.

This was done a few days after a cease-fire went into effect [on 18 January 2009, just hours before Barack Obama was sworn in as U.S. President] in Israel’s massive Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in Gaza. And, the PA Foreign Minister, Riad Malki [who was present in the Paris meeting of UNESCO yesterday] went to the Hague in mid-February to speak with ICC Prosecutor Luis Ocampo. In a press conference in Ramallah in September, Riad Malki said that he was told at that time that it would be better if Palestine filed its request for an ICC investigation into the Gaza operation if it were a STATE.

Craig Murray’s post raises a very interesting point. Now that the State of Palestine has been admitted as a full member of at least part of the UN system, this is a very effective counter to the often-heard Israeli argument that because there has never in history been a Palestinian state , there is no justification for one now. [This particular argument gets worse, and goes on to say there never was and is not now anything such as the Palestinian people, so what are the Palestinians going on about, the whole thing is ridiculous, etc. etc. etc.]…

This Israeli argument about the irreality of anything really Palestinian was previously refuted, at least theoretically, by American international law professor John Quigley, who has argued that the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence means that the state exists [and just "statehood", which I understand to mean the realization of a state on the ground, that has been lacking].

Now, this Israeli argument about the total absence of Palestinian sovereignty and statehood has been refuted in actual UN practice.

As Craig Murray writes in response to a comment on his post, “Diplomacy is the only chance for Palestinians. They can’t win by force…”

In response to the Palestinian move, the Israeli Government reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu has, as a first step, in response to the UNESCO move, this evening ordered — ordered, not merely permitted — the construction of some 2,000 additional housing units in “the Jerusalem area” [actually, in the West Bank].

The Prime Minister’s media adviser [whoever that is] issued a statement saying that Netanyahu has now “directed that the construction of apartments in Jerusalem, in the Etzion Bloc and in Maaleh Adumim, be accelerated. These are thousands of residential units, in areas that will, under any future agreement, remain part of Israel. The foregoing directive was issued at the end of the first discussion by the forum of eight ministers; the next will discuss future steps”.

Self-determination, an American principle developed by President Woodrow Wilson during the First World War, used to be a very important ideal — and it used to be considered, at the UN, a grievous international wrong for any country to prevent another people’s self-determination. And, the UNGA has many times endorsed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.

Henry Siegman, former President of the American Jewish Congress, wrote this summer on FP here that “it is in fact Israel that is engaged in the ‘delegitimization’ of the Palestinian people’s right to national self determination and statehood, not the reverse. For proof of this one need look no further than Israel’s near-hysterical efforts to prevent the Palestinians from bringing their case to the United Nations, the institution that happens to be the source of Israel’s own legitimacy, as acknowledged in Israel’s Declaration of Independence. For what Israel’s current government apparently most fears is the legitimacy that the United Nations uniquely can confer not only on Palestinian statehood but on the 1967 borders. A state that since 1967 (i.e. for most of its existence) has imposed a military occupation on its neighbor, confiscating its territory and dispossessing its population, is guilty not only of an abstract challenge to its neighbor’s claim to statehood but of violently preventing it on the ground. Such rogue-like behavior does indeed bring Israel’s own legitimacy into question … Before casting the promised veto at the United Nations that would deny Palestinians their right to national self-determination, President Obama might well want to rethink the fairness, legality, and morality of such a course, not to speak of its damage to America’s credibility in the region and beyond … Surely he must know that no one anywhere believes any longer that the peace process as its exists, to which he has urged Palestinians to entrust their future, promises anything other than hopelessness and despair”…

Meanwhile, throughout the day, diplomats, Palestinian officials, and journalists were discussing — ok, well not really discussing, but certainly at least mentioning — reports attributed to Egyptian officials who said that they have obtained Israeli agreement to hold off until midnight [which just passed] on a massive air assault that is ready to go against Gaza [unless a cease-fire really takes hold], in response to rocket fire from Gaza that killed 1 Israeli man and wounded number of others in the coastal city of Ashdod that continued intermittently an Israeli retaliatory strike on Gaza on Saturday afternoon that lasted through Monday, killing 12 Palestinians and wounding many others.

UPDATE: Within hours, the U.S. State Department announced that a $60 million payment due to UNESCO in November will be withheld because of today’s decision to give Palestine full membership in the UN agency.

The vote was 107 member states in favor, 14 against, and [either 49 or 52?] countries either abstaining or absent.

UN SG BAN Ki-Moon expressed his concern in recent days about the possible funding cuts.

But, principles prevailed.

One of the most important of these principles is the right to self-determination.

France — which is UNESCO’s host country — reportedly voted in favor of full membership for the State of Palestine in UNESCO. So did Russia + China.

Al-Jazeera reports on its website that “UNESCO’s vote will almost certainly trigger a US law, passed in 1990, which bars the US from funding any United Nations agency ‘which accords the Palestine Liberation Organisation the same standing as member states’. The US provides about $80 million per year, or 22 per cent of the agency’s total budget. The president can often override such laws with a so-called ‘national security waiver’; these waivers allow the PLO to maintain a mission in Washington, for example, despite a 1987 law barring it. But the 1990 law on UN funding, and a similar measure passed in 1994, do not provide the option of a waiver”.

The same Al-Jazeera story called the move “symbolic” — but also quoted analyst Mouin Rabbani as saying “What they’re doing is developing leverage over the Americans, the Europeans, the Israelis, so these parties begin to take them more seriously “… which is much more than symbolic.

Al-Jazeera also reported that “The European Union tried to stop the PLO bid by offering them limited membership on UNESCO’s executive committee, and funds to renovate the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, believed to be the birthplace of Jesus”.

This Al-Jazeera report is posted here.

UNESCO’s Media Services says here that “For its membership to take effect, Palestine must sign and ratify UNESCO’s Constitution which is open for signature in the archives of the Government of the United Kingdom in London. Palestine’s entry will bring the number of UNESCO’s Member States to 195″.

A month ago, South Sudan became UNESCO’s 194th member state… but that was utterly uncontroversial. UNESCO’s Media Services reported here that “On 14 July 2011, the UN General Assembly voted by acclamation [i.e. - it was uncontested, and unanimous] to admit the Republic of South Sudan as a Member State”.

Reuters reported that that “The United States, Canada and Germany voted against Palestinian membership. Brazil, Russia, China, India, South Africa and France voted in favor [n.b. - all of these 6 are currently on the UN Security Council, and 3 are among the UNSC's 5 Permanent members]. Britain abstained”.

Later reports indicated that Japan also abstained.

This Reuters report added that said that this decision will boost Palestine’s “UN bid” — the application made by PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas on 23 September to apply for full UN membership of the State of Palestine, which is now in consideration by a Committee of UN Security Council members and is expected to come up for a vote later this month [some time after the 11th, according to diplomats in New York].

The French service of the Russian RiaNovosti agency has now named 7 of the 4 states who voted against full Palestinian membership: “Quatorze pays, dont la Suède, la République tchèque, l’Allemagne, l’Australie, le Canada, les Etats-Unis et Israël, se sont opposés à cette accession“. [Sweden, the Czech Republic, Germany, Australia, Canada, US, and Israel]. This is posted here.

UPDATE: Dima Khatib, AP’s Latin American correspondent, has Tweeted [@Dima_Khatib] the full list of the 14 votes against Palestine: Australia, Canada, Czech Rep, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Holland, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sweden, US, Vanuatu.

The English Service of RiaNovosti reported here that “UNESCO delegates met the decision with a standing ovation”.

Mondoweiss picked up a CNN report that there was “laughter in the room” when the negative votes were cast at the UNESCO General Conference today — but it doesn’t mean that anybody was happy…it’s more a bitter recognition of what was inevitable.

UPDATE: U.S. State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said in Washington today that “Today’s vote by the member states of UNESCO to admit Palestine as a member is regrettable, premature, and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East. The United State remains steadfast in its support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, but such a state can only be realized through direct negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The United States also remains strongly committed to robust multilateral engagement across the UN system. However, Palestinian membership as a state in UNESCO triggers longstanding legislative restrictions which will compel the United States to refrain from making contributions to UNESCO. U.S. engagement with UNESCO serves a wide range of our national interests on education, science, culture, and communications issues. The United States will maintain its membership in and commitment to UNESCO and we will consult with Congress to ensure that U.S. interests and influence are preserved”.

Watch this Reuters video excerpt here to see Ms. Nuland is grilled by AP correspondent Matthew Lee, who wants to know exactly “how admitting Palestine into UNESCO undermines the peace process — other than by upsetting Israel”… Basically, Nuland’s answer is: “The concern is that it creates tensions when all of us should be concerting our efforts to get the parties back to the table”.

Israel’s delegate at the UNESCO meeting called the vote “tragic”, and Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called for punishment of the Palestinians — literally, for “collecting a price”… Lieberman reportedly suggested that “toppling the Hamas regime in Gaza” might be one suitable retaliation…

An official reaction published here by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that “Israel rejects the decision of the General Assembly of UNESCO of the 31st October accepting Palestine as a member state of the organization. This is a unilateral Palestinian maneuver which will bring no change on the ground but further removes the possibility for a peace agreement. This decision will not turn the Palestinian Authority into an actual state yet places unnecessary burdens on the route to renewing negotiations … The Palestinian move at UNESCO, as with similar such steps with other UN bodies, is tantamount to a rejection of the international community’s efforts to advance the peace process. Israel thanks those countries which displayed a sense of responsibility and opposed this decision in the UNESCO General Assembly. It is disappointing that the European Union, which is working to renew the direct negotiations and opposes the Palestinian move, could not reach a unified position to prevent this decision. Following the decision to accept Palestine as a regular member of UNESCO, the State of Israel will consider its further steps and ongoing cooperation with the organization”.

If today’s UNESCO vote is any indication of what will happen in the UN Security Council, 2 of the UNSC’s Permanent Members are likely to vote in favor [Russia + China], France and the UK will likely both abstain, and the U.S. will veto — if the Palestinian request otherwise will get at least the 9 votes needed to pass [otherwise, the U.S. could abstain as well].

Germany will vote against [maybe even if the EU adopts a common position to abstain...].

Colombia, which has been thought to be inclined to voting NO in the UNSC, today abstained will do also.

Portugal will probably abstain [if the EU can adopt a common position].

Six of the current ten [10] non-permanent members of the UNSC — South Africa, Brazil, Lebanon, Nigeria and Gabon — reportedly also support Palestine’s “UN bid” [barring any last-minute waivering]. Still, with the votes of Permanent members Russia and China, that brings the tally only up to 8 votes in favor, one vote short of the minimum 9 votes needed to pass…

The Voice of American reported later that “Bosnian officials said [also on Monday] the country’s tripartite presidency could not agree on whether to support the Palestinian bid for full UN membership, forcing its likely abstention from a key Security Council vote on Palestinian statehood. Palestinian officials have said they already have eight of the required nine votes for a majority on the council and were counting heavily on Bosnia-Herzegovina to give them the ninth”. This is posted here.

If this situation is maintained, the U.S. will not need to cast a veto… and the Palestinian request will be let down more gently than if there would be a veto…

But, even if the Palestinian “UN bid” does not succeed in the UNSC this time, and the Palestinians are told to come back later, they will still have a good chance of upgrading their status in the UN General Assembly a step — from observer organization to observer, but non-member, state.

And, in the meanwhile, Palestine will now soon have the status of being a full member of UNESCO…

Look at the headline:

The Children of Shu’fat Camp Rejoice at “Animals” Muppet Show

.

OK. Now, read the article itself. It’s not so long.

It appears, from careful reading, that this WAFA article was produced entirely on the basis of a press release from UNRWA.

In fact, the original UNRWA press release is posted here — and it’s exact title is:

Children of Shu’fat Camp enjoy animals muppet show

–
[note that UNRWA prefers to use the word "enjoy"].

———————————————-

QUESTIONS THIS POSES:

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever in this article as written that any correspondent of WAFA — the [yes, official] Palestine News [sic] & Info Agency — was present.

So, how would WAFA be able to know whether the children of Shu’fat [Shoafat] Camp “rejoiced”, or not?
[And, why is "animals" in quotation marks?]

Is this a genuine human interest story — or is it, as seems completely clear, institutional promotion?
[UNRWA, Spanish offices in Jerusalem]?

Why would UNRWA + WAFA be so enthusiastic about the appearance of a Spanish performing troupe?  Is it because any infusion of donor money and interest, however self-serving, must be applauded?

Ah, yes. Here it is, this is exactly what it says in the story below. In the words of the Deputy Consul General of Spain Javier Gutierrez: “It is a good opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the ‘Spanish government and UNRWA since Spanish government is a main partner and donor for UNRWA”.

So, this is the “Thank you”… with, of course, the pat on UNRWA’s own back. The Spanish offices mentioned in the WAFA article [and in the UNRWA press release] gets something nice to show the folks back home in the monthly, quarterly and yearly reports. And, of course, so does UNRWA, as this highlights [entirely on UNRWA's terms] the “good” work that UNRWA wants you to know it does…

But, it is, certainly, almost unthinkable that UNRWA and/or WAFA [and/or the Spanish Cooperation Bureau] would promote any similar performance by a Palestinian puppet show… More than that, there’s no way a Palestinian puppet troupe would be able to get, easily, funding for its work — certainly never to the same level that this Spanish troupe receives… not from UNRWA, and not from Spain.

And, what can you say about a news agency that does this?

———————————–
EXAMPLE 1:
Here is the full text of this WAFA “story” [which is really just a self-promoting UNRWA press release]:

The Children of Shu’fat Camp Rejoice at “Animals” Muppet Show

.

JERUSALEM, October 27, 2011 (WAFA) – The Deputy Consul General of Spain Javier Gutierrez joined the children of Shu’fat refugee camp on Wednesday in a muppet show of ‘animals’ in the center of the Shu’fat Camp Committee for services, said a press release by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) published Thursday.

This show was organized in cooperation with the Consulate General of Spain and Spanish Cooperation Office in Jerusalem and the UNRWA Education Program in the West Bank. This show was presented by ‘El-Retablo Muppet Theater’ that has gained many international prizes in the field of puppet performances.

‘It is a good opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the Spanish government and UNRWA since Spanish government is a main partner and donor for UNRWA. We are happy because the Palestinian children have the opportunity to share the Spanish children the things and shows they see’, explained Gutierrez.

This theater depends on the techniques of sound and movement. It is a concert of small histories concerning the animal world. Objects, elements and diverse materials are transformed into animals, animated beings whose forms, colours, sounds, rythms [sic] and movements draw varied scenic scores that captivate and amaze both children and adults.

‘El-Retablo Muppet Theater’ was founded in 1987. The company has done more than 100 performances in different places of Spain and abroad with diverse spectacles. The Theater will continue its shows across the West Bank to include UNRWA schools in Shu’fat and Balata refugee camps, Jerusalem and Bethlehem. M.S. [n.b. - these must be the initials of the editor or writer at WAFA who simply lifted, or picked up and then re-posted this material, now posing as news, straight from the UNRWA press release]…”

This supposedly WAFA news story is posted on the WAFA website here

————————————
EXAMPLE 2:
The UNRWA Press Release – picked up almost entirely as-is by WAFA:

Children of Shu’fat camp enjoy animals muppet show

“27 October 2011
Jerusalem

The Deputy Consul General of Spain Javier Gutierrez yesterday joined the children of Shu’fat camp in an animals muppet show at the Shu’fat camp services committee centre.

The show was organised in cooperation with the Consulate General of Spain, Spanish Cooperation Office in Jerusalem and the UNRWA education programme in the West Bank. El-Retablo Muppet Theatre, which has won many international prizes in the field of puppet performances, presented the show.

‘It is a good opportunity to strengthen the relationship between the Spanish government and UNRWA, since the Spanish government is a main partner and donor for UNRWA. We are happy because the Palestinian children have the opportunity to share the things and shows they see with the Spanish children’, Mr Gutierrez explained.

The theatre depends on the techniques of sound and movement. It is a concert of small histories concerning the animal world. Objects, elements and diverse materials are transformed into animals, animated beings whose forms, colours, sounds, rhythms and movements draw varied scenic scores that captivate and amaze both children and adults.

El-Retablo Muppet Theatre was founded in 1987. The company has held more than 100 performances in Spain and abroad, showing diverse spectacles. The theatre will continue its shows across the West Bank to include UNRWA schools in Shu’fat and Balata refugee camps, Jerusalem and Bethlehem”.

This UNRWA PIO press release is posted here

————————————

Where are these people staying? Elsewhere in Latakia, for the most part, Chris explained, either with relatives or friends. Apparently, Latakia’s Rimal camp for Palestinian refugees is still considered totally unsafe, and “some are sleeping in the rough”, he added.

To be very specific, he said that representatives of 1,100 families [numbering on average five persons per family] have been in touch with the UNRWA local staff in Latakia.

But. that leaves at least another 300 to 400 Palestinian refugee families [totalling some 1,500 or so people] from the Rimal camp in Latakia still unaccounted for, however…

Chris added that UNRWA has “been assisting the following groups:
Latakia: 1,100 families – 5,500 people approximately
Homs: 44 – 220 people
Yarmouk camp in Damascus: 34 – 190 people
Aleppo: a small but growing number of people”

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.

Guardian Correspondent in Jerusalem Harriet Sherwood wrote: “Israeli authorities have approved the delivery of four submachine guns to the main UN agency in Gaza for the protection of its head, John Ging, following assassination attempts and death threats … The UN is thought to use machine guns to protect its personnel in highly volatile and dangerous places such as Somalia. There have been two attempts to assassinate Ging, an energetic and charismatic advocate for the rights of Palestinian refugees. In March 2007, masked gunman fired at least 14 bullets at Ging’s armoured car as it travelled through Gaza. A second attack a few months later left one Palestinian dead and several wounded”.

So now, UNRWA is going to shoot back?

And, if so, what are the possible consequences?

UNRWA — the “United Nations Relief and Works Agency” for Palestinian refugees — has had plenty of problems through the years. But, if it now starts to shoot at Palestinians, its situation in Gaza will become untenable.

What good are four “submachine” guns going to do, if there’s a real attack on the UNRWA Director of Operations, John Ging, who these weapons are reportedly meant to protect?

Maybe the UN should pull out of Gaza, instead of running around with a few powerful weapons.

If the UN begins shooting up the place, there’s no telling what will happen next.

Sherwood wrote that “Chris Gunness, UNRWA’s spokesman, said: ‘We don’t discuss security policy’.” In that case, I wonder where she got this story from? Israeli security services?

Sherwood added: “The weapons were received by the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) last week after the necessary permits were issued, an Israeli spokesman said. UNRWA first requested permission to bring in four German-made Heckler & Koch submachine guns three years ago to supplement the handguns used by Ging’s close protection team, according to the spokesman. ‘We got a formal request five months ago, and they received the guns last week’, he added … Ging, a former officer in the Irish army, has headed UNRWA in Gaza since 2006″.

UNRWA asked “permission” to bring in submachine guns three years ago?

[That is, months after the Hamas rout of Fatah/Palestinian Security forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007, and after the Israeli government decision on 19 September 2007 to declare Gaza "enemy territory" or a "hostile entity", and after the Israeli military began at the end of October 2007 to "implement" the government decision by imposing racheted-up and unsupervised sanctions on 1.5 million people living in one of the most densely-populated places on earth? Then, the UN asked to bring in submachine guns?]

And, another formal request was made by UNRWA five months ago?

Then, Israeli authorities allowed the submachine guns to enter Gaza just last week?

Of course, UNRWA would never consider bringing the guns in through the Hamas-controlled tunnels…

But, why are “Israeli authorities” allowing four “submachine” guns into Gaza, now?

What is really going on here?

No. Something is not right. It would be better for UNRWA to just leave.

Meanwhile, an UNRWA official in New York, Andrew Whitley, had just been obliged to apologize, two weeks after saying that that Palestinian refugees should be disabused of the “cruel notion” that they might one day be allowed to return…if not to their homes, at least to their birthplaces.

In a letter, written by Whitley on 3 November which was curiously addressed to spokesman Chris Gunness — and then bravely circulated by UNRWA’s courageous Arabic-language spokesman Sami Mshasha — Whitley stated: “I am writing following my realisation – from media reports, statements and letters from individuals, organisations and governments – that part of the remarks I delivered at a conference in Washington hosted by the National Council on US – Arab Relations, on 22 October, 2010, were inappropriate and wrong. Those remarks did not represent UNRWA’s views. I express my sincere regrets and apologies over any harm that my words may have done to the cause of the Palestine refugees and for any offence I may have caused. I have spent much of my long career working for the Palestinian people, and defending their rights, in different professional capacities. It is definitely not my belief that the refugees should give up on their basic rights, including the right of return. I wish to put this letter on the public record out of concern that what I said in Washington could be interpreted in ways that negatively affect the reputation and work of UNRWA, an organisation I have been proud to serve since July 2002. The Agency is at liberty to use my statement in whatever ways it sees fit. There is no need for a reply”.

Sami Mshasha then transmitted this statement under his own covering letter addressed to Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, based in California, which had organized a protest “action alert” involving its own letter-writing campaign against Whitley’s remarks. Mshasha wrote in his covering letter to Al-Awda: “Received your thanks posted to UNRWA for distancing itself from comments by our New York Director. UNRWA’s Commissioner-General, Filippo Grandi, appreciates your concerns and we, at UNRWA, understand the reasons that prompted you to share these concerns with UN officials. Please find below [here, it is in the paragraph above] a letter from our New York Director to my colleague Chris Gunness. It is self-explanatory. I take this opportunity to invite Al-Awda members to get to know UNRWA better and what we do for and with Palestine refugees. The link below explains about an important campaign launched by the Agency (www.peacestartshere.org). Seeking your assistance to share it [n.b. -- what do you think Mshasha is referring to here -- the link to UNRWA's new campaign? Or, Whitley's letter? ] with your members and supporters”.

Al-Awda has said it was “shocked and dismayed that a senior UNRWA official, Andrew Whitley, made a statement to the National Council of US-Arab Relations on October 22, 2010, that the Palestinian refugees should not entertain the ‘cruel illusion’ that they will ever exercise their inalienable Right of Return and that they should start considering ‘their own role in the societies where they are’, or elsewhere. This statement is a grave breach of duty and betrayal by Whitley of the trust vested in UNWRA by the world community and, particularly, by the refugees themselves. As a UN official, Mr Wiltley [sic] undermined the integrity and the credibility of UNRWA and exposed himself as the enemy of the people he is supposed to serve”.

It is, actually, hard to understand exactly why Whitley — a former journalist, a former official with Human Rights Watch, and also an ambitious UN official — would have said such a thing.

Al-Awda has called for Whitley’s departure from UNRWA — which, as can be seen, can sometimes be exquisitely sensitive to public opinion. But, Whitley himself must be close to the obligatory retirement age… Of course, most ambitious UN officials normally hope that their services are so invaluable and so highly appreciated that their contracts will be extended after that.

On 1 and 3 November, Al-Awda posted its “action alerts” on its website, here, and here.

The Whitley letter [addressed to Chris Gunness and circulated by Sami Mshasha] was not the only Agency response to Al-Awda’s “action alert”.

An UNRWA statement is posted on the Agency’s website, here, says:
“UNRWA unequivocally distances itself from the statements made by the Director of its office in New York, Andrew Whitley, at the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations in Washington on 22 October 2010. These statements in no way reflect the policies or positions of the Agency and are the personal views of Mr. Whitley”.

And, if you want more information on that, the UNRWA statement refers you to either Chris Gunness, or Sami Mshasha…

The Haaretz account said: “Referring to the [Bethlehem] structure as the ‘Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel’s Tomb’, UNESCO’s board voted 44 to one [the U.S.], with 12 abstentions, to reaffirm that the site was ‘an integral part of the occupied Palestinian territories and that any unilateral action by the Israeli authorities is to be considered a violation of international law’.” The Haaretz report can be read in full here.

Neither site was controlled by of the State of Israel at its founding in May 1948. Both Bethlehem and Hebron are part of the West Bank, which was under Jordanian occupation and administration from May 1948 until the June 1967 “Six-Day” war, when Israeli forces conquered the West Bank, and have been in control ever since.

There is a mosque [Bilal bin Rabah] next to Rachel’s Tomb — and it is now virtually inaccessible to Palestinians due to Israeli security measures, including construction of The Wall.

The Ibrahimi Mosque [which contains the Cave of the Patriarchs] is under Israeli military control, and there is a forced sharing that — particularly since the February 1994 massacre of 29 Palestinian worshippers at dawn prayer by an American-born Israeli settler, Baruch Goldstein, from nearby Kirya Arba — sometimes does deprive Muslims of access, as happened during a major Jewish festival this past weekend.

All religious sites under Israeli administration are supposed to be accessible to members of all faiths, according to the Oslo Accords. But security measures trump the Olso Accords.

Earlier today, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said, according to a report in the Jerusalem Post, that “relations with UNESCO would not be restored until it retracted its statement last week that two ancient biblical sites – the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb – were an integral part of the ‘occupied’ Palestinian territories. Ayalon said that the Palestinian Authority was behind the statement, which he added, was issued by the automatic Arab majority on the UNESCO board. It is another attempt by the PA to delegitimize Israel, he said”. This is reported here.

A UNESCO press release describing the vote on this and four other related issues can be read here.

YNet reported that Ayalon told the Knesset: “We should see the organization’s call to remove the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb from the list of Israel’s national sites as part of Palestinian escalation in international organizations … Israel rejects all five of UNESCO’s decisions and has no intention of cooperating with the organization … We’ve decided to suspend our cooperation with UNESCO in these fields, and with regards to previous decisions”. This is posted here

However, Haaretz reported, “Israel’s reaction was not quite as serious as it first appeared. Ayalon’s spokeswoman said that Israel would cut off relations with UNESCO altogether – but shortly after said that the announcement had been made in error and retracted the statement”.

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu denounced the UNESCO vote as “absurd”, in a statement that said: “The attempt to detach the people of Israel from its heritage is absurd. If the places where the fathers and mothers of the Jewish nation are buried, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Leah and Rachel some 4,000 years ago are not part of the Jewish heritage then what is?”

These statements specifically refer to the sites as “part of the Jewish heritage”, while other statements have said they are part of “the cradle of Jewish history”, rather than specifically as “religious sites” [such as synagogues].

A Jerusalem Post editorial published yesterday said that “UNESCO, the United Nations body in charge of preserving historical sites, went too far this time. There is a lot of chutzpah in this post-modernist era of ‘deconstruction’ and ‘revision’. Warmly cherished religious faiths and customs are reduced to ‘false consciousness’. Nations with their own unique ethnicity and proud traditions become ‘imagined communities’. Foundational histories are reduced to nothing more than subjective ‘narratives’. But even in this radically relativistic intellectual atmosphere, the latest UNESCO decision stands out. For this was a particularly blatant attempt to erase Jewish ties to the land of Israel … The move is seen in some quarters as a response to Israel’s decision in February to include the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb on a list of national heritage sites that would receive additional funding for refurbishing and for the development of educational tours”. This JPost editorial can be read in full here

The JPost editorial stated that “Jordan denied Israel the ‘free access to the Holy Places [including the Kotel - the Western Wall] and cultural institutions and use of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives’ stipulated in the April 1949 Armistice”, and said that “Israel has done a better job at maintaining equitable access to religious [emphasis added] sites for all faiths”…

Just look at the kids in these videos:

This one is for Chris Gunness of UNRWA — and the kids: Go Gaza!

And here, too (the kids, in Rwanda):

Where the hell is Matt dot com…

And this is the one with 30 million views — the kids, in South Africa; the dog, in Kuwait; the Bollywood dancers were impervious to his moves so he imitated them rather than vice versa, and more:

It’s the music, the way he dances, with the bottom half of his body moving mechanically, like a pump machine, independently from what he does with his arms and torso … and the sheer exuberance of movement.

In the statement, Human Rights Watch said that this panel “is not a full commission of inquiry as set out in Israeli law and cannot subpoena witnesses or officials. Under its mandate, the panel must instead rely on requests for documents and ‘summaries of operational investigations’ conducted by the Israeli military itself to determine what military personnel did or were ordered to do during the May 31 interdiction of the flotilla”. And Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, stated that “Israel claims the panel is independent, but insists that it accept the military’s version of events”.

The statement also noted that “In late May 2009, the UN presented a proposal to complete US$80 million worth of housing, health, and education projects that had been stalled for two years due to the blockade. The proposal would have allowed Israeli authorities to extensively monitor imported materials, including vetting construction contractors and storage sites for the materials, as well as periodically photographing construction sites; Israel rejected the proposal. After nine months of negotiations, Israel approved only a few UN projects, including recently the completion of 151 housing units”.

The proposals to modify the sanctions that the Israeli military administers against the Gaza Strip via the land crossings include provisions for the UN (UNRWA? UNOPs?) to oversee the use of any construction materials the military may decide to allow in. Does this make the UN complicit in the siege?

The HRW message also noted that the treatment of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit may constitute torture: “Israel has cited Shalit’s detention as well as Hamas’s refusal to recognize Israel and to renounce violence as justifications for the blockade. Those who have willfully conducted or ordered deliberate or indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians are responsible for war crimes, Human Rights Watch said. And Hamas’s prolonged incommunicado detention of Staff Sergeant Shalit is cruel and inhumane and may amount to torture under international law. Shalit is unable to communicate with his family or to receive visits from the International Committee of the Red Cross. However, violations of the laws of war by one side to an armed conflict do not legitimate violations by the other, Human Rights Watch said. Hamas officials refused Human Rights Watch’s request to visit Shalit and check on his conditions of confinement during a meeting in Gaza in May, saying that they would not take the risk that his location could be discovered, even though Human Rights Watch had offered to travel to the site blindfolded and to accept any other security precautions that Hamas wanted”…

It will be the ninth expedition to try to reach Gaza by sea. According to the Free Gaza movement, this time it will be bigger and better than ever.

This time, there will be Turkish involvement.

This raises the stakes.

The Free Gaza movement is calling it “the biggest internationally coordinated effort to directly challenge Israeli’s ongoing occupation, aggression, and violence against the Palestinian people”.

The organizers apparently believe that, even if they don’t succeed in reaching their destination in Gaza, the publicity value alone, highlighting the blockade of Gaza, sufficiently justifies this attempt.

The last attempt to reach Gaza by sea was in June 2009 — then, Free Gaza ships were intercepted by the Israeli Navy off Gaza, and forced to proceed to the southern Israeli port of Ashdod, where the cargo was impounded (some of it was later transferred by land to Israeli crossings and sent into Gaza). The activists aboard were jailed before deportation.

The Government of Bahrain, which does not have formal diplomatic relations with Israel, sent a delegation to receive its arrested activists.

Now, a Turkish relief organization, IHH (Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, or Insani Yardim Vakfi), is making major preparations to participate in the coming “Freedom Flotilla”. The aim is to reach Gaza’s fishermens’ wharf by late May.

According to the organizers’ plans, the Freedom Flotilla will include as many as 9 boats, including several cargo ships, and perhaps five passenger ships with up to 600 high-profile international personalities, activists, and journalists aboard.

Some of the ships will reportedly be flying the Turkish flag.

This means that any Israeli attack on those ships would be considered tantamount to an attack upon Turkey.

Another one of the cargo ships, refurbished and outfitted in Ireland, has been re-named the MV Rachel Corrie, after the American solidarity activist who died, crushed by an Israeli military bulldozer — the IDF said the driver could not see her — while she was trying to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in southern Gaza.

The MV Rachel Corrie is Free Gaza ‘s first cargo ship (earlier vessels were rented), and plans to set sail in the coming days, after picking up its aid cargo in Cork. It will then to meet up with the other Freedom Flotilla ship vessels somewhere in the Mediterranean, before they all travel in convoy together to Gaza to deliver some 5,000 tons of humanitarian aid (including cement for reconstruction, which was removed from the cargo list of the last Free Gaza expedition in June 2009). See this Youtube video here.

Free Gaza organizer Mary Hughes Thompson said, “Although we were happy with the first trips, it was bitter-sweet, knowing that our small boats and symbolic amounts of relief paled in comparison to what was really needed in Gaza. Now, we finally feel we are helping to organize a powerful action, one with the potential to translate into a sustained campaign of much more effective challenges to Israel’s brutal siege.”

Israeli activist Jeff Halper, head of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) said that “It seems like it’s a bigger expedition, with more people … and part of the idea is to keep trying … to rachet it up, in a PR sense”. Halper was on the first Free Gaza expedition into Gaza. He said in an interview with this reporter shortly after his return that he was received very warmly, and that many Gazans came up and spoke to him in Hebrew — a result of their long years of working in Israel, where they can no longer go, due to Israel’s policy of near-complete closure of the densely-populated Gaza Strip. Halper was arrested upon his return to Israel via the Erez border crossing from Gaza, but was freed on bail, and has not been summoned to court. (Israel has since declared that no visitors can exit Gaza from Erez if they entered Gaza from Rafah…)

Last year, just before the June 2009 Free Gaza expedition that was intercepted at sea and forced to proceed to Ashdod, Halper told me that he had heard that “UN forces” were a second level of interdiction operating in the Mediterranean Sea. It was impossible to find any clear information about this. Today, he said, “I’m not sure where all that is”.

Halper also said he will not be going this month with the Freedom Flotilla, either. “I was told that ‘We know you, we love you, but it’s still a little too soon for Israelis to come to Gaza’ “– too soon, that is, after Operation Cast Lead.

The Free Gaza website says that “The Freedom Flotilla Coalition is comprised of: Free Gaza Movement (FG), European Campaign to End the Siege of Gaza (ECESG), Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH), Ship to Gaza Greece, Ship to Gaza Sweden, and the International Committee to Lift the Siege on Gaza, with hundreds of groups and organizations around the world supporting the effort”.

The formation of this coalition was announced in early April in Istanbul.

IHH, the Turkish NGO, was founded in 1995, and has worked in Bosnia, Chechenya, Haiti. It is also, apparently, functioning in the West Bank. It was reportedly very supportive of the efforts to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza via Egypt’s Rafah crossing at the beginning of this year.

IHH says its basic objective is to assist those who are “distressed, victimized by war, disaster, etc, wounded, disabled, homeless and subjected to famine, oppressed”, and “to deliver humanitarian aid to all people and take necessary steps to prevent any violations against their basic rights and liberties”. See their website here.

IHH is calling this attempt “Noah’s Ark”.

What they are up against is a formally-declared Israeli naval blockade of Gaza’s maritime space (as defined in the map attached to the Oslo Accords, which is posted on the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, here):

The Israeli naval blockade was announced on 3-4 January 2009, as Israel began the ground offensive phase of its unprecedented military operation, Operation Cast Lead (27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009).

A day or two before the Israeli government finally agreed to international calls for a cease-fire, the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Condoleezza Rice, signed a formal agreement with Israel’s then-Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni — the consequences of which were not all fully and immediately public — to participate in naval activities as part of a global interdiction of arms shipments that might be used by Israel’s enemies, whether in Gaza or in Lebanon.

On the 8th of January, the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1860 (with a U.S. abstention) that
welcomed “initiatives aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors [n.b. at the time, in the middle of Operation Cast Lead, this meant inside the Gaza Strip] and other mechanisms for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid” — but it also called upon UN Member States “to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the sustained re?opening of the crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority and Israel…” etc.

There has been no announcement that the Israeli naval blockade has been cancelled.

Attempts today to seek clarification from Israeli Ministry of Defense spokespersons went unanswered.

A European diplomat says that the Israeli naval blockade is still fully in place.

The Freedom Flotilla organizers say that “In the wake of ongoing inaction by our governments to make Israel abide by international law, we – the citizens of the world – are taking action to stand up for justice”.

They report that they have received support from John Ging, Director of UNRWA operations in the Gaza Strip, who said: “We believe that Israel will not intercept these vessels because the sea is open, and human rights organizations have been successful in similar previous operations proving that breaking the siege of Gaza is possible.”

One international commented: “Everyone — certainly everyone in the UN — says that the blockade against Gaza is illegal collective punishment”.

Nevertheless, Ging’s comment that “the sea is open” is puzzling, in light of the declared Israeli naval blockade.

“There’s more to this than meets the eye”, said the international.

The Free Gaza organizers issued a statement quoting Denis Halliday, former United Nations Assistant Secretary General who resigned from a position in Iraq to protest the effects of UN Security Council sanctions on the Iraqi population, as saying: “We welcome Mr. Ging’s statement, which recognizes the responsibility of the international community to oppose the illegal blockade that Israel has imposed on Gaza”.

Denis Halliday is also, apparently, planning to be a participant in the Freedom Flotilla.

“There is a dire humanitarian situation in Gaza”, explains UNRWA spokesperson Christopher Gunness, “and the blockade is disrupting education for thousands of five- and six-year olds in Gaza, while UNRWA has been forced to turn away 39,000 students”.

He said, however, that the UN “doesn’t currently have plans to use the sea route” to try to get supplies into Gaza.

The first Free Gaza expedition was in August 2008, and did arrive safely in Gaza — much to the chagrin of the Israeli military, who were ordered not to provide the activists with a “propaganda victory”. Then, Israel used progressively tougher tactics, ramming one ship which had to limp into a Lebanese port for repairs, and forcefully discouraging other Free Gaza expeditions.

Five Free Gaza expeditions sailed before the launch of Israel’s massive military operation, Operation Cast Lead. A boat in the sixth Free Gaza expedition was rammed by Israeli naval vessels — organizers say it was nearly sunk. The next two expeditions were also prevented from reaching Gaza.

Last June, it was nearly a fiasco. Cypriot authorities tried hard to discourage the Free Gaza organizers from setting sail, in light of the formal Israeli naval blockade, and Israeli warnings conveyed to the Free Gaza participants via various channels. One of the participants in that last Free Gaza expedition, American congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, posted a Twitter message on 25 June (http://twitter.com/cynthiamckinney) saying that “The Cyprus Port Authority has just noticed us [sic] that they will destroy the boats (for our safety, of course) to prevent us from sailing”. A Cypriot diplomat warned at the time that if the Free Gaza expedition tried to trick the Cypriot authorities about their destination (“then change once they’re at sea and head toward Gaza”), they would lose their base of support in Cyprus.

See our earlier reports here, and here, and here.

All previous Free Gaza expeditions took off from, and returned to, Cyprus.

Given the current division of Cyprus, the massive Turkish participation adds another diplomatic complication for is the upcoming “Freedom Flotilla”.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel, a monitoring organization, has posted a map that it says it got from the IHH website, showing a planned boat route from Turkey to Cyprus — and the map seems to suggest that a landing was planned in Cyprus — perhaps in the northern (Turkish-occupied) part of the island:

A Cypriot diplomat in the region said today that “They wanted to stop at Famagusta, but we said no”.

(Jeff Halper said this was “a huge issue”, and now thinks there will now be no stops anywhere in Cyprus — the ships will try to sail directly from Turkey to Gaza.)

The Cypriot diplomat added that “We didn’t stop them, but we don’t encourage them to go — because of what happened last time. We don’t want to see people killed…”

The preparations for the Freedom Flotilla are, of course, being closely tracked in Israel.  The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel is reporting here that “In the Gaza Strip, the Hamas administration prepares to receive the international flotilla, including deepening and cleaning the local fishing port. The works are carried out jointly by the Hamas administration Labor Ministry and elements in Turkey. The first phase is now nearing completion and works have begun on the second phase (savegaza.eu, the ECESG website, April 28)”.

According to a bulletin issued in early April, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center said, here, that “the possibility that Israel will try to prevent the arrival of the flotilla has been taken into account. In response, numerous actions have been planned in order to make it difficult for Israel…It appears that the parties involved in the flotilla (‘the ship intifada’, as Jamal al-Khudari said) are taking into consideration the possibility of confrontations with the Israeli navy, creating a provocation that will be used by Hamas and its partners for propaganda and political gains”.

The bulletin added: “We believe that Hamas thinks that the presence of Turkish ships and activists will thwart Israel’s attempts to prevent the arrival of the flotilla, and can be used to (further) compromise Israel-Turkey relations”.

The Turkish government’s regional cooperation with Israel has come under severe strain as a result of the Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. There was a public row over the Israeli military operation in early 2009 at the Davos World Economic Forum in Switzerland. Earlier this year, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon arranged media recording of petty humiliations he arranged when he summoned the Turkish Ambassador to Israel for a rebuke.

And, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center bulletin noted, the Turkish relief organization IHH “is banned in Israel”. It also said, without further detail, that “When some IHH activists landed in Ben Gurion Airport, they were denied entry”.

Meanwhile, blogs are reporting here that “Israeli authorities have taken Izzet Sahin, the representative and founder of IHH’s Office in West Bank, into custody on the 27th of April. Izzet Sahin has been taken into custody by the Israeli military while he was passing through the checkpoint in Bethlehem. Sahin was transferred to Ashkelon prison following his stay in the detention center of Israel Security Agency (ISA). Nobody has heard from him since the day he was arrested. No reason has been declared by the Israeli officials for Sahin’s arrest, who has been studying Hebrew in the Hebrew University … Israeli police raided Sahin’s home after the arrest and took some of his personal belongings including his computer”.

IHH reports on its website that “Bulent Yildirim, President of IHH, stated that the reason behind Izzet Sahin’s arrest might be to stop the flotilla campaign to Gaza in the end of May. Yildirim said ‘If Israel wants us to give up on the campaign by doing things like this, they are wrong. We will be taking the humanitarian aid to the people of Palestine by the end of May. We are not doing anything out of legal boundaries’. He went on to say, “Israel has been keeping our friend in custody for 8 days. He is now being interrogated. Israel’s previous actions make us concerned. There are people who lost their lives under Israeli custody, there are those who were subject to torture. The first two days we were not informed of our friend’s location. Apparently, Sahin had two receipts of aid with him when he got arrested, one from IHH, one from another aid organization in Palestine. He supposedly had videos of Sheikh Raed Salah’s [a leader of the Islamic movement in northern Israel] in his house. Israel declares these as their evidence for the crime … It is claimed that Sahin is harmful for Israel’s security. How come a person who studies at Hebrew University and coordinates aid work over there is thought to harm Israel’s security? How could this be the truth? …

Yildirim also mentioned that the Foundation wanted to send 3 lawyers to defend Izzet Sahin, however no response has been received from the Israeli side, ‘This is an insult to Turkey. Turkish state is now obliged to solve this by sending out a diplomatic warning of the highest degree’ he continued. Visa applications have been launched for the lawyers”. This is posted here.

Sahin’s first appearance in an Israel court is expected in the coming days.

Israel unilaterally “disengaged”, withdrawing some 8,000 Jewish settlers and the Israeli troops protecting them. from the Gaza Strip in September 2005. Since then, the Israeli government has argued that its occupation there has ended, and that it has no further responsibility for the people in Gaza. But, international legal experts argue that Israel’s continuing control of Gaza’s maritime and air space, and its ability to act militarily at will on the ground inside Gaza, contradict the Israeli position.