Why Did Israel Attack Civilians in the Mediterranean?
June 2, 2010
by Thierry Meyssan
Original Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article165593.html
Original Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article165593.html
ISRAEL WEIGHED IN ADVANCE THE CONSEQUENCES of its attack against a humanitarian convoy of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip. What were its objectives in triggering a world diplomatic crisis, and why did it defy its Turkish ally as well as its U.S. protector?
President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, an Israeli citizen, met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv on May 26, 2010, five days before Israel's massacre of civilians - in international waters. Israel's use of lethal force on the Gaza flotilla was evidently preplanned.
Extracts from "Why did Israel attack civilians in the Mediterranean?"
An "Act of War" Against a NATO Member State
Under international law, the decision to accost a civilian vessel in international waters is an "act of war". Legally speaking, Israel’s acts constitute the appropriation of the vessels and their cargo, the kidnapping of the passengers, murder or possibly even assassination, if one accepts the reports relayed by Turkish television according to which the commandos were in possession of a list of people that had to be eliminated...
By boarding a Turkish ship and killing passengers, Tel Aviv opted for a military response to the diplomatic crisis that has pitted it against Ankara since January 2009. Israel expects this decision will provoke a crisis within the Turkish Army command as well as between the latter and the Turkish government. However, it could also lead to a complete break in military ties between the two countries, even though Turkey has been Israel’s closest regional ally for over half a century. Turkish-Israeli joint exercises have already been canceled indefinitely. Moreover, this crisis could also affect trade relations between the two countries, despite the fact that Turkey is a vital partner for the Israeli economy...
In the afternoon, as a member of NATO, Turkey addressed the Atlantic Council. If Ankara fails to receive the appropriate response from the Israeli government, it could decide to qualify the attack as an act of war and seek military aid from member states of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty...
The Israeli decision to attack civilian vessels in international waters came after the assassination in the Emirates a Palestinian leader by a Mossad cell, the discovery of a vast network of falsified copies of passports to the embarrassment of Western states; and after Israel’s refusal to attend the international follow-up conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This set of facts can either be interpreted as a succession of exploits on the part of a state which is confident of its impunity - in this case, it could amount to just one more exploit or one too many -, or as an escalation following a brief public friction with the U.S. administration - signifying that Israel is asserting itself as the leader of the Zionist movement by showing that Tel Aviv decides and Washington complies....
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated that the Israeli operation had absolutely no legal justification. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, made it a point to emphasize that beyond the violation of the freedom of movement at sea, the blockade remains the fundamental issue. "Unless prompt and decisive actions are taken to challenge Israel’s attitude vis-à-vis Gaza, we will all be complicit in a criminal policy that threatens the survival of a beleaguered community," he said.
An "Act of War" Against a NATO Member State
Under international law, the decision to accost a civilian vessel in international waters is an "act of war". Legally speaking, Israel’s acts constitute the appropriation of the vessels and their cargo, the kidnapping of the passengers, murder or possibly even assassination, if one accepts the reports relayed by Turkish television according to which the commandos were in possession of a list of people that had to be eliminated...
By boarding a Turkish ship and killing passengers, Tel Aviv opted for a military response to the diplomatic crisis that has pitted it against Ankara since January 2009. Israel expects this decision will provoke a crisis within the Turkish Army command as well as between the latter and the Turkish government. However, it could also lead to a complete break in military ties between the two countries, even though Turkey has been Israel’s closest regional ally for over half a century. Turkish-Israeli joint exercises have already been canceled indefinitely. Moreover, this crisis could also affect trade relations between the two countries, despite the fact that Turkey is a vital partner for the Israeli economy...
In the afternoon, as a member of NATO, Turkey addressed the Atlantic Council. If Ankara fails to receive the appropriate response from the Israeli government, it could decide to qualify the attack as an act of war and seek military aid from member states of the Alliance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty...
The Israeli decision to attack civilian vessels in international waters came after the assassination in the Emirates a Palestinian leader by a Mossad cell, the discovery of a vast network of falsified copies of passports to the embarrassment of Western states; and after Israel’s refusal to attend the international follow-up conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This set of facts can either be interpreted as a succession of exploits on the part of a state which is confident of its impunity - in this case, it could amount to just one more exploit or one too many -, or as an escalation following a brief public friction with the U.S. administration - signifying that Israel is asserting itself as the leader of the Zionist movement by showing that Tel Aviv decides and Washington complies....
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, stated that the Israeli operation had absolutely no legal justification. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Richard Falk, made it a point to emphasize that beyond the violation of the freedom of movement at sea, the blockade remains the fundamental issue. "Unless prompt and decisive actions are taken to challenge Israel’s attitude vis-à-vis Gaza, we will all be complicit in a criminal policy that threatens the survival of a beleaguered community," he said.
Thierry Meyssan is a French political analyst and founder of theVoltaire Network and the Axis for Peace conference. Author of 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate, Meyssan's articles on international relations are published in newspapers and magazines in Arabic, Spanish, and Russian.
Christopher Bollyn spoke about the evidence of thermite in the destruction of the Twin Towers at the first Axis for Peace conference in Brussels in 2005.
No comments:
Post a Comment