North Atlantic Treaty; seems pretty simple to me:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .
Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
I am an unapologetic supporter of the Israelis right to exist and a supporter of their right of self-defense. This puts me at odds with other liberals at times. I only mention this by way of saying I am not one of these reflexively "everything Israel does is bad, nothing the Palestinians do is wrong" commentators.
Israel: how do I put this as delicately as I can in this situation? You guys screwed the pooch, this time.
What the hell were you people thinking? Attacking NATO-nation flagged private vessels in international waters, that were carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza, and slaughtering a portion of the crew and beating and injuring others... have I missed anything?
And as often is the case, the cover-up ends up being worse (or in this case, stoopider) than the original crime. At first Israeli commandos say they were fired on... too bad for them, one of the vessels had a live video feed to the Free Gaza home office on Cyprus. There were no guns. Then the Israelis trot out video of "captured weapons," to wit: sling shots w/ marbles, kitchen knives, sticks and chains. ZOMG! Chains! On a Ship!
Nice job... Hamas is hammering your population with Qassam, Grad and Chinese made WeiShi (WS-1) rockets but I guess ma and pa Israeli can sleep tight knowing that the sling-shot-wielding, kitchen-knife using, stick-bearing, chain-swinging threat has been dealt a severe set back.
Moreover, I am unimpressed with Israeli apologists already leaping to the "the crew was fighting back with those sling shots, sticks and kitchen knives." I know of no court that would convict anyone for exercising the legitimate right of self-defense for themselves and their vessel on international waters.
And now, there is reportedly video that shows the Israelis shooting at people before they actually landed on the ships. Now Israel admits it shot first, but that (wait for it!) "they were only paintball guns."
[/crickets]
I will not start much of legal argument here other than to say that Israel is currently violating any number of international agreements and international maritime laws to which they are party, with regard to the embargo of Gaza.
But this... this come really close to the definition of an act of state sponsored terror. So my question for the Israeli government: y'all sure you wanna ride this train?
mojo sends
