Janet Kobren is a Pinhead

Sunday (9/6) on FOXNEWS, an "activist witness" was interviewed for the Sunday morning program. This witness explained what they witnessed on Monday May 31st during the Israeli commandeering of the so-called peaceful flotilla which was attempting to violate the blockade Israel has on the Gaza Strip. The mis-information and total bias of this witness was extraordinary. FOXNEWS gave her an opportunity to spread her misnomers without ever putting her comments to the test. I shall put Ms. Kobren's comments to the test and prove she is a pinhead.

One of her complaints is that Israel is collectively punishing the people of Palestine and Gaza against the 4th Geneva Convention. She stated this in the FOXNEWS interview and she also stated this upon her arrival back in the states. So the question is what does the Geneva Convention state about "collective punishment"? Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention states, "No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."

During WWII, the Germans would punish an entire village or town for the actions of a person or several persons. This punishment was typically the slaughter and pillage of said village or town. This violates the concept of individual responsibility. Without due process, the Germans punished a group of people for the crimes of one. The Geneva Convention wanted to ensure this type of reprisal would not happen again, thus this article was passed. So is the withholding of trade or goods a collective punishment? Not in the context of the reason the article was approved. The article is concerned with physical harm. The Israelis do allow humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. While it is not enough for the Palestinians to flourish, the Palestinians are alive without being subject to physical harm. So let's flip this argument on its head and show the bias of Janet Kobren.

The blockade is in retaliation for Hamas' lobbing rockets into the southern part of Israel. The blockade's purpose is to keep Hamas from making and deploying explosives against the people of Israel. So far the blockade is working as the rocket attacks have all but ceased. Hamas was launching rockets into Israel to cause harm to innocent Israelis. In other words, Hamas was conducting a type of collective punishment on the southern inhabitants of Israel because they (Hamas) don't like the Jewish state. Hamas was punishing innocent people for the actions of others in violation of the individual reponsibility concept of Article 33. Where was the outcry of this violation of human rights by these supporters of Palestine?

The supporters of Palestine argue that the blockade is illegal. They have no basis in international law for their arguments. In fact, the blockade is legal under the San Remo Manual on International Law applicable to armed conflicts at sea. Article II of the San Remo Manual, which defines the rules of a blockade, states:

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.

The Palestinians are living in the Gaza Strip and they are not necessarily starving. One of the controls Israel is enforcing in the blockade is the limitation of electricity to the Gaza Strip. Hamas has the choice to either provide the electricity to their people or for the production of weapons. This is not a starving of the civilian population. Israel does allow humanitarian aid into Gaza but only after inspection. Now the second part of the article: Is the damage to the civilian population excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated? Of course not! The Palestinians are alive. The military advantage anticipated is keeping Israelis alive. Tit for tat; therefore, the blockade is legal.

Another bias of this "peaceful" flotilla is that they argued the violence started when the Israeli commandos boarded the ship. In other words, the boarding of the ship was the violent act. Davi Barker reported from an interview that Janet said "The violence was just their boarding, and their trying to take over." This means, without provocation, the "peaceful" members of the flotilla engaged in self-defense by the mere presence of the commandos vice the commandos actually committing an act which would constitute a threat on life. I do not know of any peaceful activist who takes up arms to defend themselves. Martin Luther King, Jr was peaceful a peaceful activist. He never took up arms, even in self-defense. Ghandi, who was constantly besieged with violent acts on his person, was peaceful. He, too, never took up arms in self-defense. These flotilla activists were not peaceful. They violated their own vow of peace (if they even had one) when they took up arms. They went looking for a fight and the Israelis fell for it.

Another beautiful element to this witness was she was not even on the ship where the violence occurred. It would've been better if FOXNEWS had arranged an interview with someone where true life-or-death actions occurred. Instead, we had to listen to someone on a ship which submitted to the takeover more peacefully. To speak up for violent offenders even one did not participate in the violence is to support the violent actions which means the non-violent participant is just as guilty as the violent participant.

Another argument Janet has against the seizure of the ships was the seizure occurred in international waters, approximately 50 miles from Israel. I love it when the ignorant speak. It shows their bias and their lack of knowledge. Of course, it means they are spreading their lies and unless someone like me steps up to point out their misnomers, their mis-information might be taken as fact.

In an earlier blog I reported on what is considered territorial waters, the contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone, and international waters. I will not go into those definitions again. Instead, let's look at what the San Remo Manual states.

Article 98 states "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." Hmm. This flotilla announced they were going to breach the blockade which means Israel has the right to capture the flotilla. The flotilla vessels resisted capture and thus were attacked. Every action was in accordance with the San Remo Manual.

Let's go even further. Article 97 states "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." The action of the Israelis occurred in waters outside the contiguous zone but within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Now the San Remo Manual addresses more of the territorial waters and EEZ of NEUTRAL states when it forbids military action. In fact, action in EEZ's of neutral states is not forbidden only to the extent that the action does not harm the economic benefits of the 200 mile EEZ. Let's utilize Ms. Kobren's own statements against her. She claims the action occurred in international waters, about 50 miles from the coast, which for her meant "they had no right to be there in internationally waters attacking non violent civilians" (Barker). Article 10 states "Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over:....the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States; (b) the high seas; and (c) subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States." Read that again, "the high seas." Is that not the very spot of international waters Ms. Kobren stated the action occurred?

So there Ms. Kobren, international law on armed conflict at sea states Israel has a right to enforce its blockade, especially against a flotilla boisterous in its claim to violate the blockade, in the very waters you say they had no right to conduct the operation they conducted. Maybe if you spent sometime getting your facts straight vice spreading your innocent ignorance, your voice for your cause might have some truth.

Janet Kobren is spreading mis-information and is mis-guided. I give her props for standing up for what she believes; she has that right. However, her message is tainted by her ignorance of law and her participation in a disguised peaceful act. For her actions, Janet Kobren and her compatriots in the flotilla are all pinheads.

Mike

References:

Barker, Davi. (2010). A hero's welcome for the Bay Area flotilla survivors. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from http://www.examiner.com/x-17122-SF-Muslim-Examiner~y2010m6d5-A-heros-welcome-for-the-Bay-Area-Flotilla-survivors

Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600038?OpenDocument

Commentaries on Article 33 of the 4th Geneva Convention. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600038?OpenDocument

San Remo Manual on international law applicable to armed conflict at sea. Retrieved 06 Jun 2010 from the International Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMSU