There's an urgent need for a European naval force to protect shipping against illegal Israeli action in the Mediterranean. The latest example is that of a Libyan aid ship being intercepted on the high seas and prevented from reaching Gaza.
"Eight Israeli warships are surrounding the Libyan aid ship for Gaza and preventing the continuation of its journey," Yousseuf Sawani, the executive director of the Gaddafi Foundation which chartered the vessel, said early on Wednesday.
You can avoid the word verification above by joining the openDemocracy community - if you have already registered, log in here
openAwakening in conjunction with the University of East London is organizing a three-part event series on ‘The Tahrir Square Meme’ to be held at UEL's Dockland Campus.
Our first event is Rap and the Arab Spring.
The Long and the Quick of revolution Anthony Barnett
We live in revolutionary times... but what does this mean? Anthony Barnett
The precariat: why it needs deliberative democracy Guy Standing
The Long Revolution Raymond Williams
Jim Gabour Sunday Comics
James Warner Standing Perpendicular, as books do
Markha Valenta Inter Alia: religion, politics, culture
Paul Rogers on Global security
Li Datong on China from the inside
Mary Kaldor on Human security
Daniele Archibugi on Cosmopolitan democracy
yes of course , but i think the europian union is busy for putting pressures on iran for its nuclear investigation and dont care much for human lifes whom are threatened and live under povertiy. It seems the international law dont know the priority of acts.
first they have to protect humanlifes any where in the world , give justice, food, medicine then look for other threatining things as they claim and they ignore israel. i know why they ignore israel, they are the one who created israel so how come they will condemn it ?!!!! it is so clear and simple
Eric,
You don’t give up, do you? Send the navy! And what do you want to achieve by your idea?
If you want to pressure the Israeli government to lift the Gaza siege and to pressure European governments to stop their support of Israel's bloody policy, I am on your side as you know.
But why the military? You could demand that every European country sends an aid ship directly to Gaza. An official mission of our governments, not only of aid groups. It’s as unlikely to achieve as your idea, but it would be at least as powerful a message to Israel. And it wouldn’t be bloodthirsty.
Are you only looking for opportunities to employ more military or do you want to achieve a political aim?
i think any normal person dont like Momo blood shed for anyone. No body like fighting but i think also eric said to protect those ships and it is not necessarly to kill or fight. May be when european naval accompany those ships , then israel will not dare to confront with those activits and that of course a noble mission Momo as i think .
Saida,
To protect those ships it is not even necessary to send the navy. A statement of support from our governments would be enough. If you want to make double sure, this statement could include “or else we won’t deliver more submarines, not even if Israel pays for them” or something like that.
All this is completely unrealistic anyway, but there is one thing I don't understand at all:
Why does Eric want the bloody navy?
Momo,
I suspect you are wrong when you say "A statement of support from our governments would be enough." Mere words will not stop the legal enforcement of a blaockade by Israel (note: you may not think it legal, but the diplomats at the UN and elsewhere know it is legal).
In that sense Eric is correct. To get the aid delivered to Gaza will take a sovereign-flagged ship (it need not be a warship), i.e. something more than an NGO, who have little to no standing in international law.
That's why Eric wants a Navy to get involved, as it represents the sovereign authority of a national government.
There are reasons other than "bloody mindedness" for nations to possess naval forces Momo. Your irrational response to them blinds you to that.
Tim,
I suspect you are wrong. What a surprise. ;-)
Israel depends on being funded by the US and Europe. That gives our governments some leverage, if they only wanted to use it, which they don’t. No navy needed. Just words that aren’t open to too much interpretation.
It’s you who introduced the term “bloody-mindedness” by the way.
Although you are in favour of this siege (and I call it a siege, and it is illegal), you wake up when Eric dreams of the navy. Sounds like “no matter what for, employ the forces” to me, if you understand what I mean.
And you call me irrational!
A diplomatic note represents the sovereign authority of a national government too. So my question to the United Militarists (don’t get excited again, you didn’t tell me what word you prefer): why that bloody navy?
Why a Navy? Because diplomatic words and UN demarches do not work with Israel, or against many other countries who feel threatened by outside meddling.
The EU has tried plenty of diplomatic notes. They do not and will not work in this case. All it will do is embarass the government who wrote it, which is why no one in the EU has pushed it. They know it will fail.
Tim
again if that seige is legal , i hope u born palestinian and live one day in gaza with your family and suffer as 1 million and a half suffering and then you can address the legality of letting those innocent people in the prison.
if the seige would harm all those people because they elect democratically hamas , that is a crime in itself and you of course as in the army , dont care for those souls as daily plenty of innocent muslims died from your military action.
Again shame on u to defend the seige wich is the killing seige and put your self with whole all family living under the seige , then you can address.,
Of course europe and America will not act as they are afraid of zionists and dont want jews to come back to their countries and because of that they let the palestinians victoms of those criminal israeli government and soldiers. No way Momo and because of that and dont blame muslims as they depend on Allah to solve it and they are sure that when Allah will , those good muslims would win lastly and no body can blame the victom to think like this or even dream . By the way for most lay muslims ,they are sure that would happen one day. Never injustice prevail and always the right would appear. I know it will not be in our era .
Tim,
“diplomatic words and UN demarches do not work with Israel”
How do you know? It’s never been tried. Most UN demarches are vetoed by the US anyway. Those that are in force are ignored by Israel AND its supporters.
If for once there was the political will to force Israel to comply with UN decisions by withdrawing the support, they would comply immediately. The US alone are paying 7 million Dollar to Israel—each day. Israel will definitely not risk to lose these subsidies.
Saida,
Europe and America aren’t afraid of the Zionists, they are pursuing the same colonial project. It’s not about any prejudice against Jews either. Nobody is afraid of Jews coming back to our countries. The majority of Jews is living here anyway, and not in Israel. There are more Jewish immigrants to Germany each year than to Israel, which is a good thing for us: it makes our culture more diverse.
Eric and Tim,
For your bathtub.
Good luck with your words Momo. See how much they are worth when people have real stakes in the matter. Notice how words meant nothing in your recent muck up with the Greek banks. Words backed by deeds, not words alone are what matters.
Greek banks? And my question about sending the military… You don’t propose the invasion of Greece, I hope.
And (utterly irrelevant for this thread, just for the record): it wasn’t about Greek banks, it was about Greek bonds that are held by German and other European banks. These banks were bailed out again, but this time at least only with a comparably small amount of money. Leave little Greece alone.
“Words backed by deeds, not words alone are what matters.”
Agreed. This is why I propose to stop subsidies and other support of Israel.
I assume that you have unthinkingly swallowed Israel lobby propaganda rather than deliberately propagating a cynical lie. The fact is that the UN has strongly condemned the Israeli blockade.
In a resolution adopted subsequent to the urgent debate on "Grave Attacks by Israeli Forces against the Humanitarian Boat Convoy", the Council condemned in the strongest terms the outrageous attack by the Israeli forces against the humanitarian flotilla of ships which resulted in the killing and injuring of many innocent civilians from different countries and called upon the Occupying Power Israel to immediately lift the siege on occupied Gaza and other occupied territories. It also decided to dispatch an independent international fact finding mission to investigate violations of international law resulting from the Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance. 18 June 2010 UN Human Rights Council
http://tinyurl.com/3755uzu
They wouldn't 'comply immediately' even on the totally unlikely supposition that the President and Congress would reverse firmly entrenched US policy and withdraw support from its greatest ally. The generous aid package is very valuable to Israel but the Jewish state would not abolish itself and its commitment to colonising Palestine for such a relatively small sum of money in the context of the national budget ($58.6 billion expenditure in 2009).
Eric,
It’s not only the US subsidies, there are the European ones too. And then there are the hidden ones, German submarines at half the price for instance. Israel couldn’t maintain its capability to occupy Palestine (and wage wars of aggression) without western subsidies and western support in the UN. They depend on this. You are underrating how much Israel is a mutual colonial project of the west.
The Jewish state wouldn’t abolish itself, right, but this isn’t my aim anyway. It would stop its aggression, though, and this is what I want to happen.
Eric,
This looks as if you have got a new ally: Avigdor Lieberman seems to have more or less the same idea like you.
Interesting. You would get the chance to play with warships, Gaza would be cut off from the rest of Palestine, the West Bank would get the independence of a Bantustan soon afterwards, and nobody would talk about Jerusalem.
And nobody is going to ask the Palestinians what they think about this.
Momo,
Despite your unwordly attitudes, you've spotted the flaws in Lieberman's cunning plan to shift the costs of managing an 'entity' in Gaza on Israel's terms but at no cost to the Jewish State.
As for your belief that Israel would give up its ill-gotten gains or simply make no effort to add to them if current financial support was withdrawn, you have to provide details. It sounds like wishful thinking.
Eric,
Despite your militarist attitudes, you've spotted the flaws in Lieberman's cunning plan. Good.
You are underrating economic power, and overrating military power. On the other hand I can’t believe that you are unworldly enough to be totally unaware how economic power is used in order to pressure other countries. (I like to believe that the people I converse with are intelligent.)
Israel gets direct subsidies, it has the most favourable terms of trade to the EU, it is supplied weapons, and its policies are always supported in the UN. If all this was cancelled, it would hurt Israel very much.
It would restrict Israel’s options immediately. As a second step it would mean that their citizens’ standard of life would sink—Israel would cut many services. Many of its citizens are emigrating anyway, their numbers would grow. This is true especially for the educated ones who have a chance anywhere, and they pay more taxes. (During the last few years there was a real wave of Israelis making sure of a second citizenship.) If more of these people leave, it will be a serious threat to the Israeli economy, and to tax revenues. And there wouldn’t be a reason for investment anymore, with everything deteriorating. Which in turn would cause … you get my drift I hope.
I find your idea that military means are needed flabbergasting. No more delivery of weapons, and they will notice there is a problem. Cut the subsidies, and they will whine. 20% customs on Israeli goods, and they will comply.
Hell, we know it works, the EU does it with every third world country if someone there has uttered the word nationalisation. Now you go and buy a warship for your bathtub and leave the High Seas alone.
I don't believe so. The question is why the navies of the countries around the Mediterranean are leaving Israel totally free to use its military power to attack civilian shipping on the high seas.
The parallel is with the Somali pirates. Do you really think that the naval forces which are protecting shipping in the area should withdraw and leave the pirates unmolested?
Should shipping in the Mediterranean be without protection against Israeli attacks?
This is an entirely separate issue from an economic blockade of Israel.
Eric,
European companies caught fish illegally in Somali waters, and other European companies dumped toxic and radioactive wastes there. This destroyed the business of Somali fishermen, and did a lot to create the problem of massive piracy there.
It would have made more sense to have sent the navies then, against our own scoundrels instead of waiting till the Somali fishermen took to piracy.
I am not against our navies protecting the shipping against pirates, but I am convinced that the problem could have been prevented.
All this is different in the shipping to Gaza. It’s the state Israel that commits the piracy (Tim, I know the term is inaccurate) for their political aim. Our governments have no intention to prevent this, they are even supporting the pirates. And if they didn’t support the pirates, there wouldn’t be any piracy. Israel is completely dependent on the US and Europe.
Quite right. Therefore, it is self-contradictory to call for economic sanctions against Israel by these same powers, even on the unfounded assumption that an economic blockade would cause Israel to conform with international law.
The question, however, is about the use of naval forces in the Mediterranean. The Israeli armed forces commit criminal acts unopposed. Yet, NATO navies constantly patrol the Mediterranean. It may be too much to expect that NATO, as such, would intervene against Israel but, of the many warships operating in the Mediterranean, it might be possible to constitute a deterrent force to act against terrorist activities by Israel.
Eric,
“Quite right. Therefore, it is self-contradictory to call for economic sanctions against Israel by these same powers, …”
But you don’t find it self-contradictory to call for military action of these same powers. Eric, really!
“…even on the unfounded assumption that an economic blockade would cause Israel to conform with international law.
I object to “unfounded”, of course.
“It may be too much to expect that NATO, as such, would intervene against Israel…”
Exactly.
“…but, of the many warships operating in the Mediterranean, it might be possible to constitute a deterrent force to act against terrorist activities by Israel.”
Dear Eric, which warships do you mean? Do you think warships act of their own will or are they a means of the governments who own them? There are a lot of nations who engage in neo-colonialism and who have warships in the Mediterranean, I know.
I just don’t know why you don’t believe that these warships are meant for anything else than this neo-colonialism! But somehow you seem to believe that there is something positive in the military, even if you agree about their government’s intentions. This is puzzling. It reminds me of Alan’s views on the soldier as such, of course.
Why oh why do you believe in the military? I know that I am completely unable to understand why people find anything positive in the military at all, so please explain! I can’t even see a uniform without being disgusted, let alone one of these grey monsters on the High Seas. Why are people attracted by militarism?
You said yourself about Somali pirates, "I am not against our navies protecting the shipping against pirates". To be consistent, you have to be in favour of the use of armed force, when required , to maintain law and order. You are confusing the legitimate use of force with aggression by referring to such use of force as 'militarism'.
Nonsense, Eric.
The Somali pirates get their ships without the help of our governments. These pirates don't have a political aim either. Which support to Somali pirates would you want to scrap?
Momo,
The point is that you are in favour of the use or the threat of force to maintain law and order on the high seas. It is quite correct to say that political and economic factors are also involved, both in the case of the Somali pirates and Israel and, indeed, in all questions of law and order.
NATO ships patrol the Mediterranean and monitor shipping on a routine basis and , on occasion, board ships as part of the so-called war on terror. For the obvious reason that NATO is under American control, this mission will not be extended to combat unlawful acts by Israel. Nevertheless, the formation of an international naval force to protect shipping against Israeli attacks is open to discussion. The fact that you see the importance, as everybody does, of a political and economic approach, is no reason why you should abandon consideration of the enforcement of maritime law in this case.
Eric,
Among our resident militarists here you are an outstanding specimen.
I find the use of navies against the Somali pirates problematic (because the problem of this piracy is the result of our own policies and should have been prevented), but legitimate and (thinking of the crews of merchant vessels) necessary.
In the case of Israel’s piracy there are plenty of means to stop it without using military force. You aren’t interested, you call for the navy. It’s the first means of your choice, not economic and political pressure.
You have overtaken Mike in terms of bloodthirstiness, are you aware of that?
He surpassed me in that area long ago. After all, I believe in a variety of instruments of national power, including force, but never excluding diplomatic and economic power. Eric believes in only one instrument of power...military force.
Yes. That's what I meant. And you are saying so consistently, that is another difference to Eric.
Post new comment