Foreign Ministry warned Israel Navy not to raid Gaza flotilla in international waters
In preparatory discussions, government cautioned that such an action would hamper Israel on the diplomatic and public relations front worldwide.
By Barak RavidDuring the government's preparatory discussions over how to handle the Gaza-bound aid flotilla, the Foreign Ministry advised that Israel's security forces wait for the ships to reach the country's territorial waters - which lie within 20 miles from the coast - before launching a takeover operation.
According to a senior official in Jerusalem, Foreign Ministry diplomats said that despite the legality of overtaking the ships in international waters, such an action would hamper Israel on the diplomatic and public relations front worldwide.
 |
Israeli Navy personnel board one of the ships of the Gaza aid flotilla on Monday May 31, 2010. |
| Photo by: Getty Images |
Yesterday the forum of seven senior ministers convened again to discuss the creation of an inquiry committee that would be tasked with probing the flotilla raid and easing the blockade on the Gaza Strip.
Following the meeting, the ministers did not release a statement regarding the formation of a panel, which is perhaps indicative of continuing disagreement with the Obama administration over the mandate and composition of the committee.
The Americans would like the committee to include an international entity to placate Turkey, which remains adamant in demanding an international investigation under the auspices of the United Nations.
Jerusalem is expected to announce the formation of a panel soon. One of the key issues to be examined by the committee is the legality of the navy's actions in the eyes of international law.
Speaking at a conference organized by TheMarker, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the world had focused too much on Israel without paying due attention to violent attacks by the activists.
"I want the whole truth to come to light," he said. "So it is important to include answers to questions that have until now been ignored by many actors within the international community."
"We have to establish who stood behind this extremist group, who financed its members, and how knives, axes and other weapons were brought aboard," Netanyahu said. "We also need to ask what large sums of money found aboard the boats were doing there, and for whom they were intended."
An Israel Defense Forces internal probe of the flotilla raid is already underway. The head of the investigation, General (res. ) Giora Eiland, will soon begin to compile the findings of the probe into a report. In discussions that preceded the flotilla's arrival and forcible takeover, legal experts with the Military Advocate General's Corps and the Foreign Ministry offered similar opinions which stated that there was no legal impediment to stopping a ship whose operators have already announced an intention to trespass a blockade, even if the takeover is done in international waters.
The legal opinions were based on precedent-setting cases involving the American and British navies as well as citations of the San Remo international law manual of 1994.
Nonetheless, Foreign Ministry officials cautioned representatives of the defense establishment that it would be difficult to justify a military operation outside of Israel's territorial waters from both a political and public relations standpoint.
Thus, according to senior figures familiar with the details of the discussions, the Foreign Ministry urged defense officials to launch their operations to stop the flotilla only after the ships had crossed Gaza's maritime boundaries. The ministry's diplomats repeated this request on more than one occasion.
"If somebody breaks into your home and you shoot him after he enters the doorway, there's no problem in justifying this action in court," said a senior ministry official. "But if you attack the burglar while he is on his way to your house at a distance of two blocks away, then you have a problem."
"It was made clear that we can ultimately prove that we acted according to international law, but this will be very complicated and we will absorb many denunciations along the way," the official said.
Senior figures involved in the planning of the operation praised the improved cooperation between the defense establishment and the Foreign Ministry. While the diplomats' warnings were understood, their recommendation was not accepted due to "operational reasons."
"The navy expressed concern that it would not be able to stop the flotilla once the ships reached within 20 miles of the coast," said an official who had a hand in the planning of the operation. "The IDF was fearful that the naval forces would not have adequate time to complete the operation. The army wanted to overtake the ships gradually and at a relatively great distance from the coast."
Defense and diplomatic officials began preparations for the flotilla's arrival two months prior to its voyage. The efforts were led by the IDF, the Defense Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, and the national media relations division of the Prime Minister's Office.
While officials who took part in the discussions reported full cooperation between the agencies, the National Security Council - the body legally empowered to direct the bureaucratic end of the government's diplomatic and security policy - first held a meeting on the flotilla just 10 days prior to its journey. The NSC was not included in the primary preparations and response.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
It seems even they had to cover their asses and admit that attacking the Miva Marmara in interntional waters is a tought one to make legal. Readers should check out the interview with maritime legal expert Douglas Guilfoyle on the legality of Israel's actions. Very little chance given the facts of Israel ever proving its act of piracy was legal, by any definition, certainly the misues of the San Remo agreements.
Is the Foreign Ministry ' in command' over the military in Israel? Isn't their job to shuffle paper, sharpen pencils and panic? On second thought that sounds like Barak's job description. Perhaps the Foreign Ministry IS in charge after all.
So the Israeli navy intercepted the Turkish civilian flotilla in international waters. Can some body tell me the difference between Somali pirates and the Israei navy?
Maybe Bibi overruled any plan. 1 because he wanted it to be in darkness, and 2 because it should'nt happen while he was posing with Obama
However our smartest of all Lieberman did not take it in consideration and, as part of the Seven Genii voted for it. We can see now the iternational appreciation of this move.
Leaders of different countries are showing their hatred towards the Jews. They are crying loud about the raid but never say anything against the Hamas in abducting an Israeli soldier.
When will you people get tired of complaining about double standards? How many Arab/Palestinian 'terrorists' are held in Israel's prisons?
in a theatre of war?
You and your ilk HAVE to conflate in order to float your arguments. Why would that be?
"We have to establish who stood behind this extremist group, who financed its members, and how knives, axes and other weapons were brought aboard," Netanyahu said. "We also need to ask what large sums of money found aboard the boats were doing there, and for whom they were intended." - Netanyahu OK, Sir, all this would be good to find out (except that the "private" Israeli security group claimed yesterday that all the knives etc were already part of the ship's kitchen equipment etc). But how can a strictly Israeli commission of inquiry find this out? There must be an international committee that will do the inquiry. They will have to interrogate the Israeli soldiers (another Netanyahu prohibition), the Turkish passengers, and their superiors in BOTH nations. If you don't like an international commission, better make nice to Turkey (after apologizing for the dead), and settle the matter with THEM!
is, to start with, for BiBi and Lieberman to resign and even better dismantle the presenr Knesset and call for new elections.
There was no doubt that Israel was going to stop the flotilla from reaching Gaza. The problem is in the way the raid was conducted, in International waters, the excessive force used, and the number of civilian casualties, and total disregard to the flag these ships had. It was either that the operation took the wrong turn, and the outcome was not as intended, or someone within the Israeli government intentionally is working on damaging the image of Israel, or damaging the Turkish Israeli ties. Israeli actions are becoming more self-defeating American-style. I honestly wonder if all Israeli ministers work for Israel or another state?
Turkey has repeatedly bombed kurd guerillas inside Iraq's territory. Just for "security" reasons. I think this is worse than intercepting a contraband flotilla in international waters.
They dont bomb entire towns and villages...and call the death of civilians a 'loss of war'.
and there were Kurds on the flotilla. The oppressed showing support for the oppressed
and there were Kurds on the flotilla. The oppressed showing support for the oppressed
1. The latest member of the SEVEN Deciders trying to shift the blame of the botched operation onto somebody else is Foreign Minister Lieberman. His office advised to do the botching in Gaza territorial waters. OK, but this would still have left 9 Turks dead! 2. Gen. Yaalon is blaming the commando unit, claiming that they did not follow standard procedure. 3. Netanyahu is blaming the Turkish passengers. I am not sure yet who will be blamed by Barak. So far he presents the affair as victory, so there is no need to blame anyone, but ultimately he will have to come up with something. Let me add that Begin and Meridor are exceedingly decent people (therefore also inept politicians), so they will not blame anybody. And last and least, no. 7 Yishai, nobody believes that he had any influence on the decision, so he doesn't need to blame anybody.
The ship had to be stopped and it was sopped . And if it was botched it was because Israel did not use enough force to prevent injuries to her solders and let the savages riot toooo long .
You've clearly misidentified the savages in this fiasco.
amazing!!
...is the information (in the next-to-last paragraph) that the defense and diplomatic folks began preparing for the flotilla's arrival TWO MONTHS BEFORE it arrived--and still ended up with a god-awful mess!
Turkey claims that they want friendly relations with Israel, but they knowingly let a boatload of terrorist sympathizers intent on a violent confrontation loose to cause havoc. Why?
Would the international community really be biased in a free-for-all investigation of the Gaza flotilla incident? There is the distinct possibility that it would, that bias being very unlikely to favour the Israeli position. Could an Israel-led investigation be accused of a similar self-serving tendency ? Very probably so. Ergo, the expectation must be that no such undertaking can produce a truly viable result, one in which the vast majority of fair-minded and rational people would find acceptance and be able to act upon with some real prospect of success. More than likely, it would represent just another inconclusive probing into the rights and wrongs of this whole affair. The problem, therefore, is to find a solution that, by and large, eliminates the inherent bias to be found in any such critique of the situation. One might begin by acknowledging the impossibility of removing such a stumbling block. If such is to be the case, then we must seek to factor bias into whatever remedy we choose, to balance its influence as far as humanly possible and even make use of it in a way that works to the best advantage of everyone involved. http://yorketowers.blogspot.com There is bias here, of course, but this bias is acceptable because it can be affected, positively or negatively, by all those concerned. In other words, bias and self-interest can become of immeasurable benefit if placed in the correct context. Ultimately, it may be well within our power to bias-off this entire conflict. And not a few others into the bargain.
You are absolutely right , Israel is not only the richest, but the most powerful country on earth - 6 million people surrounded by about 16 BILLION enemies who really don't want any appeasements - just want all the Jews/Israelis to die/disappear/be pushed into the Mediterranean (whatever image you might prefer). So yes, Israel has no problems. Its entire sqare mileage is the equivalent of about 1/4 of the state of Vermont, so I think it should give all that back and apologize for intruding (on its own territory) and just bow out.
As I have said to so many people so many times -- If the USA, UK or NATO did exactly the same thing Israel did regarding policing the blockade, no one would have doubted for a second that it was legal. Even Argentina did not dispute Britain's exclusion zone around the Falklands that led to the sinking of the Belgrana. However legally it acts the media will go crazy when Israel defends itself from terrorists like Hamas or the IHH.
Even the USA - immeasurably more powerful than Israel - blushed over the illegality of its blockade of Cuba, which is why Kennedy insisted on calling it a "quarantine" and not a "blockade" i.e. the USA had to unilaterally invent a non-existent int'l law (and consider the oxymoron that is "unilateral int'l law") in order to justify doing something that it was not legally entitled to do. I note that the USA's mini-me continues the tradition.
That the tragic results of the forceful takeover of the ships should have been anticipated, is clear. If you let a few commandos slide down ropes into a ship loaded with 600 passengers, there would be two possibilities: 1. The one I anticipated, which is that the passengers surround the attackers and throw them overboard, or 2. The attackers pull out weapons and then all hell breaks loose. Unfortunately, the brainless Godzilla decided to take over the ships by whatever force was necessary. An alternative method should have been used from the very beginning of such siege-busting flotillas. (I am opposed to the siege, but once this is the Israeli policy, a wiser enforcement should be used.) IDF commandos could have disabled the motors or propellors of a few ships either in port or while moving at sea. Alternatively, Israel could have let the ships pass, then come at night and disable them in the Gaza shore. The result would have been that the 700 pilgrims would have been stuck in Gaza for weeks, and Israel could have allowed them out slowly, and after the payment of fines. This would have served as a discouragement for others to repeat the exercise. Unfortunately, the IDF has grown into a Godzilla, with brute force as its sole means.
And since when would you allow Israel to enter Gaza port and sabotage motors of the ships there? Violent Erdogan Godzillas were looking for troubles and paid fair price for unprovoked brutal attack against soldiers boarding the ship. Those Erdogan bloodthirsty machos were not even supposed to be on board of humanitarian ship at all,they were there illegally and soldiers had every right to board the ship and investigate their mysterious apparition especially if the ship was heading to Gaza. Btw Logios.Soldiers did not use any force or violence when boarding the ship and the ropes they were holding in the moment they were attacked can be hardly seen as weapons,why do you lie.
...to the US ships Callenger I + II, who were scheduled to sail together with the Rachel Corrie! "someone" sabotaged their engines. So, your argument is baseless. Evidence shows it can be done, and it is done.
I believe this is how the 5 smaller flotilla boats were disabled.
remember that we no longer live in the old man and the sea. erdogan's terrorists used a large ship on purpose.
It is frightening the way everyone is so quick to condemn Israel over the "flotilla" which was nothing more than a jihadist publicity stunt.
He means well. I truly believe it. But he has little clue on how the world really works. He just does not see the bigger picture. A brave soldier yes, a state leader no. You have caused us enough damage Ehud Barak. From Camp David to running from Lebanon. Go please, GO!
this morning there was an annoying photo caption on another pic that accompanied the lead article. the caption referred to the commandos "storming the turkish ship" and killing "9 activists". bad caption...hope the photo and caption aren't in the paper any more.
The San Remo manual cited by Israel requires a legal blockade to satisfy at least these conditions: 1. that a list of embargoed goods be published. Israel has refused to make the list public. 2. that the items embargoed have a military purpose. Jam, lentils, macaroni, and children's shoes (all banned) do not fulfill these criteria. Because neither condition was met, the blockade was illegal. Hence its enforcement was illegal as well. See http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument
i am no legal expert. However, it seems to me that if the general thrust of the blockade is legitimate, it will take more than an inclusion of chocolate as a prohibited import to completely disqualify the blockade in question and to serve as legal basis for flotillas full of cargo to expect to come in unchecked, no?
"it seems to me that if the general thrust of the blockade is legitimate," AB is pointing out that the blockading power is not allowed to simply say "trust us, we're the good guys" i.e. if the "general thrust" is to stop weapons getting in then Israel must PUBLISH the list of "weapons-making material" that is prohibited. It refuses to do so, and it appears that the reason WHY it refuses is not because it is too lazy to bother, but because almost everything is prohibited.
i am not disagreeing that a list should be published (although i thought it was. i saw an aljazera report about it. it could be the aljazera reporter was making it up). I am suggesting that it takes more than an appearance that "everything is prohibited" to proclaim the blockade illegal, as if the cargo crew was some sort greater legal/moral authority when really, they weren't appointed by (or accountable to) anyone, and somehow demand that Israel lets the cargo in unchecked.
The turks teach you how to be international state.But i am sure that you would insist on again being terrorist without knowing any international rule.
Israel; too many independent chiefs! too many screw-ups! sad!
If it really was a large sum of money, he would have named the figure. He also is lieing about thr so-called weapons. Knives in kitchen and axes for fire-fighting. Common on all ships. He continues to make himself look the fool. Plus, that ridiculous comb-over.
Israel propbably has a legal right to use proportionate methods to try to prevent weapons reaching Gaza. It has no right whatsoever to prevent the people having access to things like pasta, coriander, chocolate, school books, building materials to resconstruct homes destrpyed by Israel etc. It has no right to almost totally prevent, for years, the movement of civilians in and out of Gaza in the current situation of very sporadic qassam launches by small numbers of people. Most of the blockade is demonstrably illegal collective punishment and serves no legitimate military purpose whatsoever. In that context, the Freedom Flotilla was legally right to try to break it by transporting non-military goods, and they had every right to defend themselves against an illegal IDF raid attempting to enforce an illegal blockade, doubly so because the raid was in international waters. Since the raid itself is illegal, that puts a huge question mark over all the killings committed by the IDF which is probably why Barak won't let them by examined by independent investigators. A burglar who has entered someone's house does not have the right to kill the homeowner if the homeowener tries to resist their raid.
1. i agreed that not letting chocolate and coriander in is a bit absurd. however i am not sure coriander is a human right. no israeli claimed that life is gaza was good, but life in a war zones run by terrorist organizations rarely is. 2. "sporadic qassams:" are you for real? 3. "small number of people:" i'm not sure if you've read the news in the last decade, but there are now thousands of hamas combatants. They are hard to count because their uniform is civilian clothing. 4. "collective punishment:" let me get this straight. Israel shouldn't have targeted killings, aren't allowed to attack Hamas because they operate in densely populated areas so any attack = civilian deaths, are not allowed to monitor the cargo coming into Gaza, is there ANYTHING that Israel could do legitimately in your opinion? Does Israel have any right to self defense? 5. "no legitimate military purpose whatsoever:" most people boarding planes aren't terrorists, yet they go thru rigorous checks when going on a plane, you know, to make sure. Isn't it legitimate for Israel to have requested something similar. They could have negotiated something, but the protesters were adamant about NOT cooperating in anyway. Do you think that maybe raised suspicions? 6 "Barak won't let them by examined by independent investigators:" no countries let their soldiers be questioned. By putting saying they will testify, Netanyahu and Barak are putting their butts on the line. Takes more political courage to do that than let the soldiers take the heat no? 7 " A burglar who has entered someone's house etc:" when you put up a white flag, bring a baby on board, call yourself a peacenik, tell the navy you have no belligerent intentions, you are falsely claiming you are a non-combatant. You saw the footage of the shaking chains etc, soldiers were taken under deck (presumably for handover to hamas to use as additional shalits), does that seem purely defensive to you?
"If somebody breaks into your home and you shoot him after he enters the doorway, there's no problem in justifying this action in court," said a senior ministry official. AND THAT IS EXACTLY the argument of the activists for attacking the IDF, as the IDF broke into someone's home (the ship), and thus the activists had every right to resist and attack the intruder (IDF in this case). And thus as this senior ministry official said "there's no problem in justifying this action" (by the activists in this case).
Wrong analogy. If the POLICE call and say they are coming, then knock on your door with a warrant and probable cause, you have no right to fight them. And you would be STUPID to do so. Israel is policing the waters against the smuggling of weapons and contraband to the enemy, HAMAS, and has every right to do so.
You say "Israel is policing the waters"...eh? Which 'waters'? Which international body (U.N?) provided Israel with a 'warrant' to police 'International' waters? Who provides the warrant which the policeman shows at your door? Did Israel give itself a warrant? Can Iran also police INTERNATIONAL waters and decides to storm an Israeli (non-military) ship, just because Iran gives itself a 'warrant'? See where your logic can lead to?
Either way, It was certainly not illegal in any sense. This sounds like sombody's trying to cover for their own failure at "diplomacy and PR". The IDF did nothing wrong, other than to underestimate the potential for violence from the "activists". They should have gone in with more force from the start. That was a mistake of having soft intentions towards these "activists". Hopefully the IDF won't make that mistake again.
What a silly comparison. It's like apples and oranges. According to international law Israel was allowed to do as she did. International Maritime Law allows the interception of all shipping, enemy as well as neutral in international waters as long as they are headed into a Naval Blockaded area and have been warned.
"Is armed assault against civilians a smart idea?" is the question that should be asked. That is the plan that was executed. That they resisted the armed assault is a natural act. They didn't seem inclined to believe Israel's peaceful intent when the helos delivered armed soldiers in the dead of night. Would Israelis believe in the peaceful intents of Turks attacking in the dead of night with armed commandos?
You are leaning heavily on the legality of the blockade to justify the takeover. The hard question is what the legality of the blockade itself? In the rules of international law "what is built on falsehood is false".