Israel opens fire on Gaza aid flotilla; at least 10 dead, 60 wounded

[bascule]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-at-least-10-activists-killed-as-israel-navy-opens-fire-on-gaza-aid-flotilla-1.293089

 

Topic says it all, but some ground rules for a thread like this, since the last time this happened the thread descended into a number of ad hominem attacks against myself:

 

• Just because I started this thread does not make me pro-Palestine
  
• Just because I started a thread which casts Israel in a bad light does not make me an anti-Semite
  
• I hope you all can recognize that Israel and Palestine are both doing bad things
  

That said... discuss. My opinion is Israel seriously needs to be sanctioned, especially by the US which despite an unprecedentedly burgeoning national debt continues to deliver billions in aid to Israel.

[Pangloss]

Is this the thing that forufes was talking about over in this thread?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52353

[bascule]

Is this the thing that forufes was talking about over in this thread?

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=52353

 

Yes, my bad, although I can't exactly say the other thread was descriptively titled...

[Double K]

Countless UN violations over many years, billions in aid from the US, countless violations of peace and cease fire agreements - It just seems that if any other than this country did these things, different actions would be taken.

And now attacking (an unarmed?) peace convoy...

[mooeypoo]

Bascule, I don't think you're antisemite and I don't think you're anti israel or pro palestine, I've never stated or hinted that and I really honestly don't believe that.

 

That said, I'm surprised in you. Since when is a newspaper's headline enough?

 

Israel Navy troops opened fire on pro-Palestinian activists aboard a six-ship aid flotilla sailing for the Gaza Stripearly Monday, killing at least 10 and wounding several others after the convoy ignored orders to turn back.

 

The Israeli military said 10 activists were killed after its troops came under fire while intercepting the convoy. Unofficial reports put the death toll at between 14 and 20.

 

While I don't condone this at all, and I do think something should be done, it is worth noting (which was NOT written in the headline) that the convoy of activists opened fire on the soldiers first. This also makes one wonder what kind of activists were onboard. I don't know all the details, but this will not be the first time terrorists hide behind "innocent" convoys - they do that in Iraq, too, against US soldiers.

 

This wasn't an unarmed convoy.

The military said in a statement: "Navy fighters took control of six ships that tried to violate the naval blockade (of the Gaza Strip) ... During the takeover, the soldiers encountered serious physical violence by the protesters, who attacked them with live fire."

 

The result is catastrophic, I agree, and heads should roll since the bottom line was shooting at civilians. But that little detail changes the picture, don't you think?

 

~moo

[JohnB]

I think we need more information.

 

The IDF is claiming the activists started the violence. If this is true, then tough luck for the activists, but only idiots bring iron bars to a gunfight.

 

However, if the activists did not start the fight, then the IDF is seriously in the wrong.

 

There is also the point that the flotilla was trying to break a military blockade.

 

A question for our American friends. If the National Guard has sealed an area and you try to drive in with a truck, what would happen?

[mooeypoo]

I think we need more information.

 

The IDF is claiming the activists started the violence. If this is true, then tough luck for the activists, but only idiots bring iron bars to a gunfight.

 

However, if the activists did not start the fight, then the IDF is seriously in the wrong.

 

There is also the point that the flotilla was trying to break a military blockade.

 

A question for our American friends. If the National Guard has sealed an area and you try to drive in with a truck, what would happen?

I agree.

 

We will have to wait a few more days for the investigation, and after we have the full details, we can make a better judgment.

 

I'm not sure if you guys remember the case of the big ship that intended to come to Gaza shore a few years ago under the pretense of humanitarian aid, that was taken over by the IDF who "discovered" (there was intel about it) tons of guns and ammunition meant for the terrorist groups.

 

There's no doubt there aren't any 'innocent parties' in this conflict. I just want to remind everyone that not everything is as it seems.

 

~moo

 

BTW:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-aid-convoy-can-unload-cargo-in-ashdod-for-inspection-1.292560

 

Israel requested that the aid be inspected before it is taken into Gaza (for the obvious reasons above, and plenty of examples where 'innocent' ships are taken advantage of by militia groups to smuggle weapons and explosives into the Gaza strip).

[jackson33]

I'm not sure if you guys remember the case of the big ship that intended to come to Gaza shore a few years ago under the pretense of humanitarian aid, that was taken over by the IDF who "discovered" (there was intel about it) tons of guns and ammunition meant for the terrorist groups.

 

There's no doubt there aren't any 'innocent parties' in this conflict. I just want to remind everyone that not everything is as it seems.

 

~moo[/Quote]

 

The "Reality" is there are guilty parties involved and the reasons/motives have been known for well over a thousand years. Israel established their blockade, both giving the reasons and the solutions to properly aid and assist those dead set on their own annihilation.

 

The breaking or attempting to break that blockade, was reason enough to allow inspection of the goods being delivered or even turning the "flotilla" around. When did "activist" take over the meaning of law breakers, then against a Government, more likely they were infiltrators from some terrorist organization.

 

Off topic, but IMO the untold story for that part of the World is that any stabilization afforded comes from Israel itself, that happens to be allied with the US. Without Israel to be the villain, for the "Muslim Brotherhood, formed 1928, Sunni driven" movement or any of the 30 different Traditional Muslim Sects otherwise known as Terrorist Groups, chaos would take over the middle east for decades to come. Please NOTE, before someone goes off half cocked, I am not talking about what's called the 'Moderate Muslim Society', however I am beginning to wonder about their influence in the Muslim World. Seems like every day I read about some Muslim Cleric, wanting this or that from some Government, including the current NYC issue...

[bascule]

While I don't condone this at all, and I do think something should be done, it is worth noting (which was NOT written in the headline) that the convoy of activists opened fire on the soldiers first.

 

Do you have a source for that? My understanding, at least from this article, is that they didn't open fire until after their ships had been boarded, and that initially they attacked with "sticks and knives". The article also claims they "confiscated two pistols" which apparently had been fired.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Israel requested that the aid be inspected before it is taken into Gaza (for the obvious reasons above, and plenty of examples where 'innocent' ships are taken advantage of by militia groups to smuggle weapons and explosives into the Gaza strip).

 

While it sounds like the ship had a small number of handguns, I haven't heard reports it was carrying explosives.

[mooeypoo]

Alright, I have to say a few things.

 

I have family in Israel, and I grew up in Israel. Most of you know that. So, that said, (and, in light of previous experience with discussions about this) I would like to set up a few points here.

 

• The fact I'm Israeli does not mean I condone this, like this, or agree with the actions of my government. In fact, I didn't vote for the current government and think it's not a good one (to say the least) for my country.
  
• The fact I have family in Israel only strengthens my desire for peace in the region. I actually live there, and I (and my family) paid and still pay a heavy price when violence occurs. I lost friends in terrorist attacks; for me, these situations are *REAL* in the aspect that any deterrence for peace means actual *REAL* danger for my loved ones.
  
• I served in the Israeli military as a Lieutenant, as all Israelis served in the military. I can't share what I did, but the fact I was a soldier is by no means saying that I am for violence, or for attacking civilians.
  
• There is an INSANELY LARGE outrage in Israel today, by the citizens, about what happened. It's very easy for people to reduce such arguments to nations without faces, or to simplified terminology such as "the good" and "the evil". I wish it was that simple. Israelis are diverse, and so are the Palestinians. We have problems with our leadership in both sides of the 'fence'.
  
• For me, this is more than horrible. First, civilians were killed and that's a catastrophe. Beyond that, though, I have to also consider (as many of my fellow citizens, and my government, I hope) that this will lead to acts of revenge from the other side. Acts of revenge, whether you find them justified or not, are not ones where soldiers attack soldiers. They're ones where terrorists explode in busses. I already lost five of my friends along the years to such attacks along with many other civilians. I would rather not see that again.
  On top of that concern, this seems to mean, also, that the efforts for some sort of peace (or even 'truce', quiet, cooperation, anything) are now seriously taken back to the starting point (if not even further). I - as my family, and the vast majority of Israelis who are not in the extremes - want peace. We might differ on how to get there, but no one WANTS to live in a war. This sets us back years, and it's terrible for both sides.
  

The bottom line in this case is terrible. Civilians are dead, and Israelis are outraged by the way this mission was carried out. But there seem to be underlying details here that make this more than a bit of an oversimplified version of 'the good' vs. 'the bad'.

 

The flotilla seems to have had more than just peace keepers. They were ready for the military, and they were armed. The ignored requests to stop, the refused to allow inspection, and they moved on fiercely ahead - seemingly to 'show off' that they mean business. The navy boarded those ships with paintball guns meant to disprese small crowds - and met heavy resistence with LIVE fire. The soldiers were defending themselves with the paintball guns, and when those didn't help, they tried, still, not to shoot. We're talking about "Shayetet 13", which is the most elite unit in the Israeli navy. These aren't soldiers that panic and just decide to shoot.

 

From ynetnews (an account from the scene):

(source: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896796,00.html)

Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.

 

 

However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.

 

 

One soldier who came to the aid of a comrade was captured by the rioters and sustained severe blows. The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other “don’t shoot, don’t shoot,” even though they sustained numerous blows.

 

[...]

 

The forces hurled stun grenades, yet the rioters on the top deck, whose number swelled up to 30 by that time, kept on beating up about 30 commandoes who kept gliding their way one by one from the helicopter. At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness.

 

Only after this injury did Flotilla 13 troops ask for permission to use live fire. The commander approved it: You can go ahead and fire. The soldiers pulled out their handguns and started shooting at the rioters’ legs, a move that ultimately neutralized them. Meanwhile, the rioters started to fire back at the commandoes.

 

“I saw the tip of a rifle sticking out of the stairwell,” one commando said. “He fired at us and we fired back. We didn’t see if we hit him. We looked for him later but couldn’t find him.” Two soldiers sustained gunshot wounds to their knee and stomach after rioters apparently fired at them using guns wrested away from troops.

[...]

 

During the commotion, another commando was stabbed with a knife. In a later search aboard the Marmara, soldiers found caches of bats, clubs, knives, and slingshots used by the rioters ahead of the IDF takeover. It appeared the activists were well prepared for a fight.

 

And finally,

It appears that the error in planning the operation was the estimate that passengers were indeed political activists and members of humanitarian groups who seek a political provocation, but would not resort to brutal violence. The soldiers thought they will encounter Bilin-style violence; instead, they got Bangkok. The forces that disembarked from the helicopters were few; just dozens of troops – not enough to contend with the large group awaiting them.

 

The second error was that commanders did not address seriously enough the fact that a group of men were expecting the soldiers on the top deck. Had they addressed this more seriously, they may have hurled tear-gas grenades and smoke grenades from the helicopter to create a screen that would have enabled them to carry out their mission, without the fighters falling right into the hands of the rioters, who severely assaulted them.

 

These two errors are catastrophic - they ended up killing civilians. But this wasn't a peaceful ship. It wasn't peaceful protesters. It was a group ready to fight, who shot live ammunition on soldiers who tried not to shoot back, until they couldn't vouch for their safety. This is a catastrophe, but it's not as clear cut and 'flat' as "the good" vs. "the bad", and I think we will all do well by considering the entire situation before jumping to conclusions and riling up for action.

 

~moo

[bascule]

Video from the BBC:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10195997.stm

 

Additional footage (from Al Jazeera) of IDF boarding the ships:

 

pn-l_JltCB4

 

But this wasn't a peaceful ship. It wasn't peaceful protesters. It was a group ready to fight, who shot live ammunition on soldiers who tried not to shoot back, until they couldn't vouch for their safety. This is a catastrophe, but it's not as clear cut and 'flat' as "the good" vs. "the bad", and I think we will all do well by considering the entire situation before jumping to conclusions and riling up for action.

 

While this is true, pretty much the totality of evidence that "this wasn't a peaceful ship" comes directly from the testimony of IDF soldiers, testimony which would seem to contradict the video footage (see link).

 

That's not to say that the IDF forces are lying, but I'd take their testimony with a grain of salt. For example you cite one soldier claiming they had an assault rifle before IDF forces had even boarded with an assault rifles. Where did this rifle go after the fight?

 

A question for our American friends. If the National Guard has sealed an area and you try to drive in with a truck, what would happen?

 

I'm not sure the analogy is apt. The Gaza ships were attacked in international waters. I don't know much about maritime law, but what gives Israel the right to set up a naval blockade in international waters?

Edited May 31, 2010 by bascule

[mooeypoo]

While it sounds like the ship had a small number of handguns, I haven't heard reports it was carrying explosives.

No, but because of past experiences with those, Israel requests ALL ships to submit to an inspection.

 

This is the ship I was refering to, but there were others: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Cargo_boat_illegal_entry_Gaza_waters_intercepted_5-Feb-2009.htm

 

You know, tons and tons of humanitarian aid gets into gaza every day, bascule. I know that the mainstream media doesn't report it very much, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Increased_humanitarian_aid_Gaza_after_IDF_operation_Jan_2009

COGAT - Summary of humanitarian aid to Gaza 2009

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2009/Humanitarian_aid_to_Gaza_following_6_month_calm.htm

 

And there are more. To say that Israel prevents all humanitarian aid from getting in is just simply not true. What is true, however, is that since many times "innocent-looking" devices are used to smuggle weapons and armaments, Israel requires an inspection.

 

As catastrophic as the events today are, though, I am not sure what the rioters thought this will end up in; the soldiers seemed to have done quite a lot to prevent casualties. Even when they used live ammunition, they shot their legs - until the rioters escalated yet again. They didn't push and shove them, they kicked them with clubs, stabbed them, adn threw them off decks. We're talking about a mob of rioters here. Against soldiers. Where, exactly, did the rioters expect this lead to?

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

While this is true, pretty much the totality of evidence that "this wasn't a peaceful ship" comes directly from the testimony of IDF soldiers, testimony which would seem to contradict the video footage (see link).

 

That's not to say that the IDF forces are lying, but I'd take their testimony with a grain of salt. For example you cite one soldier claiming they had an assault rifle before IDF forces had even boarded with an assault rifles. Where did this rifle go after the fight?

I believe they stated in that article (at least that's also what I've heard in the news about that) that the weapons were taken from the soldiers. I am not sure about the assault rifle.

 

But that leads to my point: We don't know what happened just yet. We can't cast judgment either way. Not yet. We have to wait and see what a proper investigation yields -- going over all the footage and testimonies and everything, and getting a clearer picture of what went on there.

 

I am simply saying that it's not a clear cut case of "The evil israelis" boarding "an innocent little ship of activists", and since that isn't the case, we should refrain from judgment until we actually get *facts* and know what actually happened rather than guesses and blames that aren't necessarily representing the true events.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Also, bascule, I have to point out, in the spirit of scientific rigor here, that it's not really telling us anything to look at images without the context of the language. You bring a video that is in Arabic with emotional pictures - obviously, we will all have an emotional response, but since we don't know what the people say, we have no context, and no way of knowing if this is one sided.

 

If we want to reach any sort of meaningful conclusions as to what to do against or for or with or whatever Israel, we need to deal with facts - preferably objective, as much as that's possible in a political situation. Unfortunately, as much as the emotional response begs us to react immediately, we don't seem to have the facts yet. It might be prudent to reserve judgment, then.

[bascule]

No, but because of past experiences with those, Israel requests ALL ships to submit to an inspection.

 

I guess we're witnessing a case when one of these ships decided to forego Israel's "request" to "submit".

 

Can you tell me where Israel derives the authority to board these ships in international waters? It's my understanding that doing so is generally regarded as "piracy"

[mooeypoo]

7Hu5UfW3rA8

And this, IDF warns the Flotilla and requests they do things properly:

P6jDIQr59Sk&NR=1

[padren]

Well the biggest thing that doesn't make sense to me on the Israeli side, is why they did not wait until the ships left international waters and trigger a very legal response.

 

As for the ships, the beating of the people as they come down the ropes is pretty condemning. Even in international waters, you can't just start clubbing people and shooting and not expect to be shot at. It may sound cheesy (maybe it's a cheesy way to say it) but there's no way you can visit that sort of violence on people while on a mission that carries "nothing but peace" in your heart.

 

Encircling and beating individuals with clubs as they are on the ground is just incredibly hostile - I honestly don't know how anyone could do that without already having absolute contempt and hatred for them.

If their motive was to simply force the blockade to respond and repel or seize them as a political statement I don't think you'd see that level of vitriol. Even in terms of repelling attackers from the sovereignty of your vessel in international waters - it doesn't make sense to have 8 people beating a guy on the ground with clubs when there are other people commandeering the vessel.

It really looks from that video that the activists were dead set on being fired upon for the sole purpose of how Israel would be condemned.

 

Not to say Israel's response was well planned or even warranted in international waters, but regardless of what the activists "deserved" I can't see how they weren't trying to create this exact scenario.

[mooeypoo]

Well the biggest thing that doesn't make sense to me on the Israeli side, is why they did not wait until the ships left international waters and trigger a very legal response.

Israelis (and myself included) are asking the same thing now. There are already demands to investigate the manner and calls for the dismissal of the Minister of security (not sure how you say that name in english).

 

But I think the main issue here is that we really need to wait and see what the actual evidence show. It's too early, people are too emotional, and the accounts are not necessarily trustworthy on *both* sides.

 

~moo

[bascule]

And this, IDF warns the Flotilla and requests they do things properly

 

Properly by what metric? You still haven't said what gives Israel the authority to raid ships in international waters, with armed soldiers rappelling from helicopters.

 

You can talk about a violent response from the Palestinians, but the numbers speak for themselves. These are trained, armed soldiers raiding a ship filled with civilians. No soldiers died. Civilians died. The civilian wounded outnumber the wounded soldiers by more than an order of magnitude.

 

Did the Palestinians do something wrong here? Sure. But as far as I can tell what the Israelis did here was at the best piracy and at the worst a flat out act of war. They raided a ship in international waters. How is that in any way justifiable?

[mooeypoo]

Properly by what metric? You still haven't said what gives Israel the authority to raid ships in international waters, with armed soldiers rappelling from helicopters.

Yes, this, however, is a different discussion than what actually happened on the boat.

 

The discussion whether Gaza should or shouldn't have control over its territory is a complex one, but Israel, so far, is under the vast experience that Hamas - if left to control the access - uses it to deliver weapons and explosives that are directly used to attack Israeli citizens.

 

Israel has asked the international community many times to step up and have a proper customs control on the Gaza shore and on the borders to prevent this, and nothing is done about this. That taken into mind, Israel is taking control over its own safety.

 

We can argue if that's the "proper" way to do it or not, but the bottom line is that this blockade - legal or not - is enforced for a while now. Humanitarian aid *is* getting into Gaza through the legal channels, where the entry points are controlled by the IDF but are supervised, who checks the entering equipment to verify there's no weapons or explosives.

 

They caught countless of those inside 'innocent' vehicles (like ambulances) as well as boxes and shipments marked 'humanitarian aid'.

 

This is about the security of the people of Israel. The international community is excellent in condemning Israel's choices, but is doing absolutely nothing to prevent terrorism on Israel soil against Israeli citizens.

 

Bascule, these aren't soldiers we're talking about. We're takling about explosions inside hotels, and busses, and restaurants. These are acts against *citizens*.

 

Israel at the moment seems to have no choice but to take its security to its own hand. If the flotilla really did have the innocent intentions they claimed to, why not submit to a customs check? This was done before, and the equipment was let in - it happens regularly with regular supplies entering the strip - but since it wasn't anything exciting, the iinternational media tends to ignore things when they're "normal".

 

The people on the flotilla intended to create an international outcry by creating violence. It's quite clear from their actions and their behavior. The argument about what Gaza should and shouldn't control is a different one, and it's much more complex than just "it's their right".

 

If Canada was to regularly bomb the northern part of the USA with guns, rockets and explosives they are getting through the sea, and the Canadian government would refuse to do proper checks, and the international community would be idly sitting on the other side of the world criticizing and doing nothing, would you really think the US would let this go on? At some point, you take your citizens' safety to your own hands.

 

This was not supposed to happen, if things worked safely and by the regulations Israel imposed. Whether or not it has the right to is a different issue; the real issue here is that this flotilla was *not* a peaceful demonstration, it did *not* intend to bring peaceful innocent aid to the strip - it indended to confront the Israeli authorities, create an international mess and show Israel in a negative light.

 

What Israelis are very angry about (at the government) is that the flotilla succeeded. If Israel was to wait a few more miles and caught them inside the territorial water (it wasn't that far off it) things might have been different -- however, still, I suspect, people would claim Israel has no right to stop innocent ships from getting to Gaza -- ignoring evidence that many ships in the past were completely *NOT* innocent even when they pretended to be.

 

You can talk about a violent response from the Palestinians, but the numbers speak for themselves. These are trained, armed soldiers raiding a ship filled with civilians. No soldiers died. Civilians died. The civilian wounded outnumber the wounded soldiers by more than an order of magnitude.

The fact the soldiers are trained might be the reason why only 10 were killed and not 30. I don't know if you've seen videos of riots, but it's not very organized and nice as to accommodate trained soldiers.

 

You shoot at a soldier, you expect to be shot back. The difference between trained soldiers and non trained people is that the soldiers miss less. According to the accounts we have so far (and again, I really think we should wait for more reliable information from both sides here) the soldiers attempted to shoot people in the leg when they already decided to shoot live bullets (after being beaten and attacked by a *mob* of people).

 

Did the Palestinians do something wrong here? Sure. But as far as I can tell what the Israelis did here was at the best piracy and at the worst a flat out act of war. They raided a ship in international waters. How is that in any way justifiable?

I didn't say it was justified. In fact, I believe my first post showed quite clearly that's absolutely not my position.

 

~moo

[jackson33]

Properly by what metric? You still haven't said what gives Israel the authority to raid ships in international waters, with armed soldiers rappelling from helicopters. [/Quote]

 

Bascule; Below is the reasons you ask for, but keep in mind the first five (of 6) were boarded without incident and the six likely a planned event by those nice little activist.

 

Instead the Israelis decided to intercept the flotilla out at sea, beyond the co-ordinates of the maritime blockade which Israel is enforcing on Gaza, claiming a right under international law. It says it acted beyond the blockade limits because of the number of vessels involved, meaning presumably that there would be less chance of one or two slipping through. [/Quote]

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10199476.stm

 

These are trained, armed soldiers raiding a ship filled with civilians. No soldiers died. Civilians died. The civilian wounded outnumber the wounded soldiers by more than an order of magnitude. [/Quote]

 

As mentioned five ships were boarded and no one was even that upset. When the six was boarded, no one was hurt (probable exception of the soldiers) under after their guns were taken and the decision was made for self defense. Those four soldiers, were seriously hurt...

 

Did the Palestinians do something wrong here? [/Quote]

 

It's NOT about the Jewish and Palestinians, but who ever might have been involved in trafficking weapons, Turks, Iranian, or whoever...

 

Israel has asked the international community many times to step up and have a proper customs control on the Gaza shore and on the borders to prevent this, and nothing is done about this. That taken into mind, Israel is taking control over its own safety. [/Quote]

 

moo; I would think they have asked the UN as well, but the fact they have been left alone to fight their own battles (may include Iran), especially by the US, you may be underestimating the problem of further Missile attacks from inside the Gaza...Might add that Turkey, has been drawing away from a moderately good relationship as well.

[mooeypoo]

moo; I would think they have asked the UN as well, but the fact they have been left alone to fight their own battles (may include Iran), especially by the US, you may be underestimating the problem of further Missile attacks from inside the Gaza...Might add that Turkey, has been drawing away from a moderately good relationship as well.

Yeah, that's what I'm worried about.

[Pangloss]

Yes, my bad, although I can't exactly say the other thread was descriptively titled...

 

It's cool, I was just wondering if it was the same thing. I'm reading this thread over and still kinda shaking my head in confusion over this whole sequence of events. But kudos on the discussion, and to you and Mooey in particular for the level-headed analysis.

[JohnB]

Just doing a bit of background checking.

 

Firstly the IDF Statement about the blockade found here;

3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral states.

 

7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

 

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

 

Provided that 3 above is correct, then all the rest follow correctly.

 

Concerning 3 above. I hope people will accept the word of the ICRC.

 

Regarding "International Waters";

SECTION IV : AREAS OF NAVAL WARFARE

 

10. 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:

 

(a) the territorial sea and internal waters, the land territories, the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf and, where applicable, the archipelagic waters, of belligerent States;

(b) the high seas; and

© subject to paragraphs 34 and 35, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf of neutral States.

(Emphasis mine) But yes, blockades are legal in International Waters.

 

Section III Article 47 lists certain vessels as exempt from attack including;

(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;

 

So you could claim exemption under this rule except that Section 48 says that the exemption doesn't apply if;

© do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

(Emphasis mine)

 

BY failing to stop when ordered, the flotilla lost exemption.

 

Section V which pertains to merchant vessels states;

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;

(Emphasis mine)

Again, International Law favours the Israelis.

 

Part IV, Section II deals with Blockades;

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.

 

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.

 

It would appear that Israel was quite winthin its rights under International Treaties and Laws. A blockade had been declared and was being enforced. The flotilla was a self described "blockade runner" and as such was legally liable for search and seizure.

 

Blockade running is inherently dangerous and has been recognised as such for hundreds of years. I would point out that the Israelis would have been within their legal rights to sink the blockade runners, instead they showed restraint.

 

Concerning the vids posted.

 

I really wish there was a timeline for bascules long one, as it appears to be pasted together from the footage of a number of cameras. So we a group of masked and armed men, at least 1 is wearing a gas mask about to repel the commandos, yet this is after the footage claiming that a white flag had been raised. So either the timeline is messed up or the activists were preparing to attack the Israelis after the white flag was raised.

 

I also note that at 2:41 into that vid, the man on the stairs appears to have a handgun in his left hand.

 

I note that around :48 into Mooeypoos first vid, the man weilding the bar appears to be wearing a gasmask. It is possible that the group on deck is the one we saw on the stairs in bascules vid.

 

Whichever way you look at it, the flotilla was in contravention of International Law in attempting to run a declared blockade. The vids also show that they intended to resist those enforcing the blockade by actively using force against the IDF. The IDF vid also indicates that the activists initiated the violence.

 

Given that it is not unknown in the Gaza conflict for persons to deliberately kill themselves with explosives, it remains quite possible that those who attacked the commandos did so in the knowledge that live or die, they would further the cause.

 

A further note on weapons. The IDF is not a police force. Like military forces worldwide, when boarding a vessel they carry military, not police weapons. Which means that they don't carry batons, they carry assault rifles. In this case, they also carried paintball guns.

 

When attacked with staves military personnel cannot respond in kind as they don't carry staves or batons. The choice is barehands or firearms. I doubt that anybody would reasonably suggest that military personnel defend themselves against an attacking mob using only their bare hands, so that leaves only one option. This simple fact of weapons and tactics is lost on most civillians.

 

"They are using live fire" the announcment said. Well what did they expect, blanks?

 

Given the stated intent of the flotilla to break a blockade in contravention of International Law.

 

And given the large number of people on board. 600? Is this a supply ship or a cruise ship?

 

And given the media with cameras at the ready.

 

And given the attack on IDF personnel in the sure knowledge that the only way the IDF could respond is with live fire.

 

And given the refusal to follow the request to travel to a different port where the cargo could be checked and then sent to Gaza under the eyes of those on board the supply ships. (A demand that is also within the constraints of International Law)

 

It is not unreasonable to conclude that this was a staged event with the sole purpose of propaganda to bring the IDF into disrepute. It is unfortunate that people still fall for this sort of thing.

 

BTW, I predict that neither weapons or munitions will be found on board these vessels. Which the organizers of the event will claim as "proof" of their humanitarian desires.

Edited June 1, 2010 by JohnB

[mooeypoo]

Yeah, these activists were expecting - and planning - for violence. Look at the stuff that was found:

JvS9PXZ3RWM

[ewmon]

The IDF is claiming the activists started the violence. If this is true, then tough luck for the activists, but only idiots bring iron bars to a gunfight.

 

Yet the IDF has clearly stated that its commandos were armed with paint ball rifles but wore secured firearms just in case. Very clearly, anyone in the military knows it is suicidal to brandish non-lethal arms when confronting armed terrorists. This indicates that the IDF did not expect to encounter terrorists with firearms and, in fact, the IDF itself referred to the passengers as "protesters".

 

The IDF admits that it found two pistols on board. Whoop-di-do. The stuff shown in the YouTube video are all defensive and mostly makeshift in nature: colorful smoke torches, black-and-yellow slingshots, maybe 100 small sling stones, blue and white pipes, wooden tool handles, knives, heavy metal tools, gas masks, and a ½ L isotonic saline solution bottle from Turkey with unknown contents.

 

We're talking really low technology, possibly items scrounged together after Israel announced it would forcibly board the vessels. Go through anyone's home and you'll find plenty of similar items except for the smoke torches, slingshots and gas masks. It doesn't scare me that these folks may have been prowling the high seas or headed into a war zone armed with slingshots.

 

For as horrible as the Holocaust was (and I have several Jewish friends as well), I think that the creation of the state of Israel was artificial, and that Israel's exaggerated belligerence (including spying against America) has, for many years, been operating in the plateau part of the curve and has suffered from the law of diminishing returns.

 

As for me, I haven't felt sorry for Israel for quite some time.

[mooeypoo]

Yet the IDF has clearly stated that its commandos were armed with paint ball rifles but wore secured firearms just in case. Very clearly, anyone in the military knows it is suicidal to brandish non-lethal arms when confronting armed terrorists. This indicates that the IDF did not expect to encounter terrorists with firearms and, in fact, the IDF itself referred to the passengers as "protesters".

The IDF didn't expect to handle armed terrorist, they expected to handle a small riot. They didn't want to hurt anyone, which is why the were armed with things that are used for small riots: stun grenades and paintball guns.

 

Their pistols were for "worse case scenario". Sadly, that scenario became reality.

 

The IDF admits that it found two pistols on board. Whoop-di-do. The stuff shown in the YouTube video are all defensive and mostly makeshift in nature: colorful smoke torches, black-and-yellow slingshots, maybe 100 small sling stones, blue and white pipes, wooden tool handles, knives, heavy metal tools, gas masks, and a ½ L isotonic saline solution bottle from Turkey with unknown contents.

Defensive? There are 10 people hitting a soldier with clubs and sticks and knives *before the soldier had time to land on the boat*.

 

That's not defensive.

 

We're talking really low technology, possibly items scrounged together after Israel announced it would forcibly board the vessels. Go through anyone's home and you'll find plenty of similar items except for the smoke torches, slingshots and gas masks. It doesn't scare me that these folks may have been prowling the high seas or headed into a war zone armed with slingshots.

 

For as horrible as the Holocaust was (and I have several Jewish friends as well), I think that the creation of the state of Israel was artificial, and that Israel's exaggerated belligerence (including spying against America) has, for many years, been operating in the plateau part of the curve and has suffered from the law of diminishing returns.

The problem here is looking at the situation and not what people want the situation to represent. Read through JohnB's reply again, he brought up quite a lot of answers to the situation.

 

Again, this is a catastrophe, and there should be heads rolling off whoever was in charge of this. But this isn't a clear cut "evil!!!" vs. "awww poorsies peoplesies" case, like many in the media makes it seem.

 

It's hard trying to be balanced in an emotional situation, but if we want to make actual progress, we need to look at things with all the information from all sides.

 

In reality, there are rarely black-and-white situations.

 

As for me, I haven't felt sorry for Israel for quite some time.

No one's asking you to.

 

~moo