Yes. It’s true! After everything he has said, Sir Roger’s scepticism has been swept away by his discovery of a new, an alien, religion.
And who would not want to be part of such powerful theatre, such wondrous ceremony, gorgeous ritual and exotic, ultra-dimension beings from the infinite corners of the universe?
Two excellent talks that will give you good feelings and even hope! From the Royal Society of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce
The truth about financial incentives:
How our human super power can save the planet:
You’re welcome
“We came for peace,”
said the commando, one of the first Israeli soldiers to board the Mavi Marmara.
”They came for war.”
How you can tell “we came for peace” is that we came in the dark of night in warships and armed rigid-hulled inflatable boats, and rappelled down from military helicopters.
How you can tell that the flotilla “came for war” is that they had boats filled with food and supplies that would have been appropriate for a struggling, broken down, hungry, besieged population whose land we progressively steal.
So now you can tell who the real terrorists are.
They’re the people who believe in non-violence, humanitarians who are committed to the welfare of others, people who empathise with the pain of others and who try to do something to alleviate the suffering of others in the world.
So, you know, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Médecins sans Frontières, UNHCR, World Vision etc. etc.
I mean, that’s obvious, isn’t it? Just like Mr Fish says:
I mean, you know, let’s be clear about who are the professional victims here, right? You just have to understand that whatever the situation and whatever action we take however brutal and excessive, Israeli is always the victim, okay? Anyway, the White House will make sure no-one never has to find out what really went on. They’re okay with us “investigating” ourselves.
Shalom
Israeli spokespeople are cheerfully quoting the “San Remo Agreement” or the “San Remo Accord” as if it gives their recent action legitimacy; that Article 67(a) confers on them the special right to board civilian craft of other countries in international waters if they are threatening to run a blockade.
But it does not and you’ll see why.
The actual title of the San Remo “Agreement” is San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994.
The first doubt you might have is whether there was “an armed conflict at sea” before the Israelis dropped from the helicopters onto the civilian ferry and other craft.
It is true that the Manual initially seems to offer some legitimacy:
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
This is the one paragraph that they quote because it suits their purposes. But wait, there’s more. It goes on to say:
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
68. Any attack on these vessels is subject to the basic rules in paragraphs 38-46.
69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
Part III : Basic rules and target discrimination
Section I : Basic rules
38. In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.
39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.
40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.
42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:
(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
(b) are indiscriminate, in that:
(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.
43. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.
44. Methods and means of warfare should be employed with due regard for the natural environment taking into account the relevant rules of international law. Damage to or destruction of the natural environment not justified by military necessity and carried out wantonly is prohibited.
45. Surface ships, submarines and aircraft are bound by the same principles and rules.
Section II : Precautions in attack
46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.
All of this is in a context of warfare and one is not at all sure that Israel is in a state of declared war with the Palestinians. Or with an international bunch of peace activists.
Section II : Methods of warfare
Blockade
93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.
94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.
95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.
96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.
97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.
98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.
99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.
101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94.
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) 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.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted.
So Articles 102 and 103 expressly forbid the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
All of this makes the mendacity of the Israelis starkly clear. Particularly the oozing, excremental (and happily ex-Australian) Regev.
And they are relying on you and me not having read the whole San Remo Manual which they flash so briefly and so nonchalantly.
Shame on you, Israel! Big Shame!
And big international lawsuits ahead.
When menace lurks behind every door
If the Israelis approached civilian craft in international waters with the intention to – and in fact did – board, take control of and then tow, or with armed force cause, those craft to land in an Israeli port, isn’t that piracy? What is the difference really between the the Israelis and the Somali pirates? […despite the claim by Mark Regev, the unctuous Israeli spokesperson, that (“as you know”) interception on the high seas with warning is allowed in some convention or other …]
There are, however, these Articles from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea:
Article 88: Reservation of the high seas for peaceful purposes
The high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes.
Article 89: Invalidity of claims of sovereignty over the high seas
No State may validly purport to subject any part of the high seas to its sovereignty.
Article 90: Right of navigation
Every State, whether coastal or land-locked, has the right to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas.
Article 110 : Right of visit
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96, is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
As far as one knows there is no suggestion that the flotilla was suspected of piracy, slavery, unauthorised broadcasting, or having no or bogus nationality.
There is just one thing you need to know in order to understand Israeli politics:
If you understand that you understand the Wall, this recent piracy, and even Mark Regev (ptooey ptooey) — possibly Australia’s most embarrassing export.
They will do and say ANYTHING – lie, cheat, kill, stab friends in the back – whatever it takes to maintain their existence so that NEVER AGAIN will they be the victims.
You can understand this for obvious historical reasons.
Of course, the problem is that this attitude/policy makes them their own victims; cages and imprisons them and shrouds them in the fog of their own delusion and blindness.
They blockade the Palestinians, but they also besiege themselves.
The paradox is that a policy that is all about NOT being a victim, because it is predicated on the reaction to victimhood actually makes the policy all about being a victim – in the present and into the future. And protecting against victimhood ignites the resentment and fuels the very fury that threatens them.
Who are they, after all, if they are not Victim reacting to Victimhood, struggling for survival in a hostile world in which terror surrounds them, menace lurks behind every door and NOBODY can be trusted?
Who are they?
What else is Israel?
What else do, or could, they stand for?
That’s the question for them that, when they can answer it, might free them and much of the rest of the world.
Anyway, it’s fascinatingly awful to watch them self-destructing, as they are – making increasingly appalling choices, telling increasingly preposterous lies and taking increasingly hysterical actions, marching with deliberate, inexorable, arrogance to self-inflicted defeat.