UPDATED Gaza Latest (17 June): Israel "Eases Blockade"; Turkey Suspends Military Agreements with Israel; Reactions to Israeli Enquiry

UPDATED 1020 GMT: Would you like a story that might be even bigger than Israel's announcement of a revised blockade policy? Try this from Zaman:

"The Defense Industry Implementation Committee (SSİK) convened under the chairmanship of PM Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to take up the issue of military agreements and projects with Israel. Turkey -- which recalled its ambassador to Tel Aviv and cancelled three military exercises in the aftermath of a bloody Israeli raid on the Mavi Marmara aid ship -- has shelved 16 bilateral agreements due to Israel's refusal to apologize for the killings or pay compensation.

Thus, all Turkish-Israeli agreements at the state level have been cancelled....

All bilateral projects in the field of military training and cooperation will be frozen; a $757 million plane and tank modernization project and a missile project worth over $1.5 billion have already been shelved. The majority of work on these projects was planned to be cooperative Turkish-Israeli efforts.

Gaza Flotilla Aftermath: Does This Video Show Israeli Commandos “Executing” Turkish-American Furkan Dogan?

UPDATED 0945 GMT: The Israeli Prime Minister's Office has announced that Israel will ease its land blockade on Gaza, expanding the number of products allowed into the area, including construction materials: "It was agreed to liberalize the system by which civilian goods enter Gaza (and) expand the inflow of materials for civilian projects that are under international supervision."

The statement said "existing security procedures to prevent the inflow of weapons and war materiel" would continue. There was no reference to Israel's sea blockade.

Both Turkey and Amnesty International have criticised Israel's plan for an enquiry into the military operation against the Freedom Flotilla, with three Israeli members joined by two international observers, Nobel Peace Prize winner David Trimble of Northern Ireland and Ken Watkin, former judge advocate general of the Canadian military.

The head of the Middle East and North Africa division of Amnesty International, Malcolm Smart, said: "The structure of the government-appointed committee brings disappointment. This was a missed opportunity." He added that the probe lacked sufficient independence from the Government to reach meaningful conclusions and that the findings of the committee would be unusable for future legal actions in regard to the events that occurred during the flotilla raid.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was quoted by Agence France Presse, "We have no trust at all that Israel, a country that has carried out such an attack on a civilian convoy in international waters, will conduct an impartial investigation.

In Ankara, ministers of the Erdogan Government clearly agreed on three points: Israel committed a crime and must acknowledge this; Israel must apologize to both the Turkish state and its citizens; and Israel must give compensation to the families of people it killed, to the wounded citizens, and to Turkish citizens who were forcefully taken from the Flotilla and arrested. Turkey's ambassador to Israel remains in Ankara.

The Turkish-Israeli tension is causing ripples in the US, with Jewish groups debating a response. “There are lines that mustn't be crossed, and we have seen over the last weeks those lines aggressively crossed,” said Jason Isaacson, the director of international affairs for the American Jewish Committee, and added: ”The dilemma is to honor the legacy of Turkey's hospitality and integration of its Jews in its society.”

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency also put out this "undecided" position. The organisation said:

The fragile consensus emerging from the establishment Jewish organizational leadership is that the relationship it has cultivated over the decades with Turkey is worth preserving -- at least for now.

However, speaking to to RFE/RL's Armenian Service on Monday, Washington Times journalist Eli Lake insisted that Turkey can no longer count on the backing of the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States in its efforts to block a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide.

He added, "One of the prizes of the Turks in their relationship with Israel was support from the American Jewish community in Washington. After the flotilla incident, I would say that that support for now has dried up."

Comments

[Catherine]

RE: However, speaking to to RFE/RL’s Armenian Service on Monday, Washington Times journalist Eli Lake insisted that Turkey can no longer count on the backing of the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States in its efforts to block a congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide.

What?! The lobby of the people who suffered the most egregious example of genocide in modern times have been blocking a congressionsal resolution to recognise the Armenians genocide of 1915 as such?! I honestly dididn't know this. Is this true?

[aliyenidunya]

Yes, Catherine. It is true. Indeed, this issue has been one of the core ones discussed by Turkish media.

[Catherine]

Thanks - I'll check this out when I recover from my shock!

[Catherine]

At this stage I really shouldn't be surprised by such hypocrisy, but I thought at least genocide would be non-negotiable for Jewish lobbies.

[Catherine]

Ali, now that I've got your attention :-),
If you have the time, I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the subject of the comment I posted in your 13 June thread that starts, "Many US commentators are saying that Turkey was played by Iran ..." and refers to the article: Extending Hands or Clenching Fists? Obama's Doublespeak on Iran
http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/13/turkey-analysis-which-way-is-ankara-heading-yenidunya/#comment-56497690" rel="nofollow">http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/13/turkey-an...

[aliyenidunya]

Catherine, I am so sorry that I missed your question. I have just replied to that. Thank you for your interest and comments which significantly contribute to our pieces.

[Thomas]

I recently watched an interesting TV programme regarding the killing of passengers on the boat heading for Gaza by Israeli commandos.
Both sides blamed each other of course & the spokesperson for the boat passengers was a New Zealand woman giving her account, then it was the turn of a high profile Israeli giving his account of what happened & according to him the commandos were only acting is self defence when attacked by the passengers yeilding iron bars etc etc.
Now the thing is that the Israelis approached the passenger boat in international waters, so they obviously made the first aggresive move....pretty much says it all dosn't it, & as for Israel want their own internal enquiry is a joke in itself, & of course they would be so dammed scared of the outcome of any international enquiry, but even if the results of that did go against them then as usual they would get off the hook & remain untouchable but the question on my mind is what can be done to change this.

[Dave]

UPDATED 0945 GMT: The Israeli Prime Minister’s Office has announced that Israel will ease its land blockade on Gaza, expanding the number of products allowed into the area, including construction materials: “It was agreed to liberalize the system by which civilian goods enter Gaza (and) expand the inflow of materials for civilian projects that are under international supervision.”

***********

They won't get any credit among their detractors, of course.

[Dave]

Quoting Thomas -- "Now the thing is that the Israelis approached the passenger boat in international waters, so they obviously made the first aggresive move...."

***********

But it was legal.

[Catherine]

This week I watched an excellent documentary on the attack of the Mavi Marmara, which examines claim and counter claim from both sides. It's called 'A Voyage of Life and Death' and includes an exclusive interview with the captain of the Mavi Marmara, those on board the ships and previously unseen footage. It shows quite clearly that the ship was boarded in internationlal waters, that the passengers were aware of the approaching Israeli boats and started throwing objects at them as they neared the Mavi Maramara, that the Israelis started with paintballs then moved on to live fire, that a group of passengers armed with thin metal poles, sticks and deck chairs were waiting for the soldiers and beat three of them badly when they came down on ropes (this is futher confirmed in interveiws with several eyewitnesses), that the soldiers were then taken down to a lower level and treated, for their injuries, that live fire was coming from the helicopters and several passengers were killed by sniper-like shots early on in the attack, that the Israelis were also looking for certain individuals whose names and pictures were in a booklet the soldiers were carrying, plus lots more. It's 45 minutes and worth watching. You can see it online (link below) or, if you receive Aljazeera English, it will be shown Saturday 19 June at 1400 GMT and Sunday 20 June at 1900 GMT.
http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general/2010/06/2010610154848702507.html" rel="nofollow">http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/general...

[Catherine]

RE Whether boarding the Mavi Marmara in international waters was actually legal remains to be clearly demonstrated by those with in depth knowledge of international law. On EA all we have so far is this single legal opinion: http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/02/gaza-flotilla-a-legal-opinion-the-occupying-power-had-to-facilitate-the-passage/" rel="nofollow">http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/02/gaza-flot...

To which Dave answered, "If I'm not mistaken, a state that has legally established a blockade can enforce it by boarding vessels in international waters if there is evidence that those vessels will breach the blockade."

The author of the post does not address the point raised by Dave, and Dave does not provide any information as to the source of his comment. So these questions remain:
- Which body of international law states that it is legal to enforce a (legal) blockade by boarding vessels in international waters if there is evidence that those vessels will breach the blockade?
- Is the blockade of Gaza established by Israel legal in international law?

I think however that it is abundantly clear, after having been explicitly and repeatedly stated by the activists themselves, that they were intent on breaking the blockade of Gaza as well as bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza.

[Catherine]

Thanks Ali but your answer didn't actually address my question, which I reformulated more specifically for you in that thread.

[Thomas]

The last legal expert I heard expressing their views in regard to Israel boarding that passenger boat in international waters said that Israel clearly got it wrong on that count, so if Israel was going to do it at all then why didn't they wait until the boat was outside of international waters?
In answer to Dave quoting me it's not really the international waters saga that is of primary concern here, but the way that a superior armed force slaughtered those boat passengers who were approached first I might reiterate by the Israeli commandos.

[Thomas]

The blockade of Gaza in itself is illegal, so of course then so is what the Israelis did in international waters.
I also feel that one reason the Israelis chose international waters rather than territorial or even coastal waters was because of the isolation in the open sea from any witnesses, apart from the boat passengers of course.

[Catherine]

Thomas,
You could say that "laws" were violated on both sides. Israel attacked a ship in international waters, in violation of international law, and the flotilla intended to break the limits imposed by Israel’s blockade. However, not all laws are equal; the blockade itself was deemed illegal by a United Nations report last year. Similarly, not all violations are equal. Israel violated international law out of convenience, with little or no expectation when the order to attack in the middle of the night was given of either witnesses or consequences (since it hasn’t suffered them for past incidents), while the activists on the flotilla intended to flaunt the blockade as an act of conscience, exposing themselves to the consequences.