Israel boards activist flotilla, shots fired, reports of dead and wounded

[fuji]

However, notes Michael Byers, Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International law at UBC, the test in international for constituting legal self defence is whether the action taken was “necessary and proportionate.” On the facts, “the action does not appear to have been necessary in that the threat was not imminent,” Prof. Byers said.

What he's overlooking is that it's well established that a blockade must be effective to be legal, meaning, a nation cannot cherry pick which ships to stop. It must stop them all, or none.

Moreover I think in this case it is necessary and appropriate: Here we have a ship that is owned by a Turkish group with links to Hamas flouting a naval blockade. It further turned out that rather than peace activists there were violent fighters on the ship. While THIS ship may not have weapons that is exactly the group that is likely to send weapons in the future--all their ships should always be inspected.

 

[slowpoke]

What he's overlooking is that it's well established that a blockade must be effective to be legal, meaning, a nation cannot cherry pick which ships to stop. It must stop them all, or none.

Moreover I think in this case it is necessary and appropriate: Here we have a ship that is owned by a Turkish group with links to Hamas flouting a naval blockade. It further turned out that rather than peace activists there were violent fighters on the ship. While THIS ship may not have weapons that is exactly the group that is likely to send weapons in the future--all their ships should always be inspected.

If all the Israelis were trying to do was maintain the legality of their blockade, they simply needed to disable the ships and tow them elsewhere. That would have been much closer to the required "necessary and proportionate" response. But not all that helicopter / commando bullshit with paintball weapons plus a few sidearms just to make sure people could get killed if there was a scuffle. And it is a stretch to claim that maintaining the legality of a blockade is an act of immediate self defense. Maintaining a long term legal requirement is not the same as neutralizing an immediate threat. You don't kill people to ensure that your position remains legal for years to come. You kill someone if they are about to kill you. I think the professor is right.

 

[flubadub]

What he's overlooking is that it's well established that a blockade must be effective to be legal, meaning, a nation cannot cherry pick which ships to stop. It must stop them all, or none.

Moreover I think in this case it is necessary and appropriate: Here we have a ship that is owned by a Turkish group with links to Hamas flouting a naval blockade. It further turned out that rather than peace activists there were violent fighters on the ship. While THIS ship may not have weapons that is exactly the group that is likely to send weapons in the future--all their ships should always be inspected.

I still don't quite understand your logic on this, Fuji.

Lets see.
Most of the world understands that Gaza and the West Bank are occupied by Israel.
Israel says its removed its army from Gaza, but still controls the airspace, entry and exit, everything going in and everything going out.
So if Gaza is not occupied, is it a free country?
Is it still under siege just because they refuse to recognize Israel?

The problem is you can't have a blockade against yourself, and since Gaza is not a separate country but a controlled stated withing Israel, how can you be at war with them? Is it a revolution?

 

[toguy5252]

If all the Israelis were trying to do was maintain the legality of their blockade, they simply needed to disable the ships and tow them elsewhere. That would have been much closer to the required "necessary and proportionate" response. But not all that helicopter / commando bullshit with paintball weapons plus a few sidearms just to make sure people could get killed if there was a scuffle. And it is a stretch to claim that maintaining the legality of a blockade is an act of immediate self defense. Maintaining a long term legal requirement is not the same as neutralizing an immediate threat. You don't kill people to ensure that your position remains legal for years to come. You kill someone if they are about to kill you. I think the professor is right.

They were not expecting to be mobbed and attacked. The organizers had announced that they expected to be boarded by Israeli forces and that people aboard were to simply lock arms in peaceful protest. that was whet the IDF expected to encounter. They were set up and walked right into it.

 

[fuji]

If all the Israelis were trying to do was maintain the legality of their blockade, they simply needed to disable the ships and tow them elsewhere.

It's nice to play armchair admiral, but I assume the reason why the Israelis did not do that is that it would risk sinking the ships and threaten the lives of all 600 on board.

The opinion of the Israeli navy was that the approach least likely to result in loss of human life was to put people on board the ships and take control of them. It was the hostile, violent reaction of the militant fighters on board that resulted in a small arms battle and a loss of life.

I think the Israelis behaved correctly, given the expectations they had that the activists were going to limit their response to non-violent resistance.

Now that the Israelis know that in reality they will face militant fighters I think they will take a different approach next time--they will come in harder, faster, with live ammunition, they will probably fire tear gas and stun grenades onto the deck in advance of coming down. That will look scary and generate nasty headlines but it will probably also mean they succeed in taking control of the ship quicker and cleaner without a pitched battle on the deck and therefore with fewer casualties on all sides.

 

[slowpoke]

They were not expecting to be mobbed and attacked. The organizers had announced that they expected to be boarded by Israeli forces and that people aboard were to simply lock arms in peaceful protest. that was whet the IDF expected to encounter. They were set up and walked right into it.

But my argument, as well as that of Prof. Byers, is that boarding the ships was not necessary or proportionate. If the Israelis really believed that the protesters would all remain as docile as baby lambs, why the paintball gear and pistols with live ammo and the rapid descent from helicopter etc? It just doesn't add up - especially if they were merely trying to protect some long-term legal technicality - ie: that the blockade would not remain legal in the longer term if it became selective about who got in and who didn't. All they had to do was prevent those boats from getting beyond whatever point they'd chosen when they initiated the blockade x number of years ago. This commando assault was for some other reason and it was stupid.

 

[fuji]

I still don't quite understand your logic on this, Fuji.

I'm happy to walk you through it.

Lets see.
Most of the world understands that Gaza and the West Bank are occupied by Israel.

SOME people assert that. I haven't seen any indication that it is the view of "most of the world".

Israel says its removed its army from Gaza, but still controls the airspace, entry and exit, everything going in and everything going out.

Correct. Which is different than occupying the land.

So if Gaza is not occupied, is it a free country?
Is it still under siege just because they refuse to recognize Israel?

It's fair to say it is under siege, which is different than occupying the land.

The problem is you can't have a blockade against yourself

This is nonsense: That's like saying that the British could not have blockaded the American colonies during the US Revolution because Britain viewed the colonies as part of Britain--but they DID blockade them, and they blockaded them in international waters.

 

[slowpoke]

It's nice to play armchair admiral, but I assume the reason why the Israelis did not do that is that it would risk sinking the ships and threaten the lives of all 600 on board.

The opinion of the Israeli navy was that the approach least likely to result in loss of human life was to put people on board the ships and take control of them. It was the hostile, violent reaction of the militant fighters on board that resulted in a small arms battle and a loss of life.

I think the Israelis behaved correctly, given the expectations they had that the activists were going to limit their response to non-violent resistance.

Now that the Israelis know that in reality they will face militant fighters I think they will take a different approach next time--they will come in harder, faster, with live ammunition, they will probably fire tear gas and stun grenades onto the deck in advance of coming down. That will look scary and generate nasty headlines but it will probably also mean they succeed in taking control of the ship quicker and cleaner without a pitched battle on the deck and therefore with fewer casualties on all sides.

This thread has led us to measure the legality of Israel's actions against what we've been told constitutes a legal and appropriate response by experts in the field of global politics and international law. If someone commits a crime, no matter how spontaneous, he will be held accountable under the law. So the entire legal system is routinely required to play armchair admiral, armchair this and armchair that. The Israelis had plenty of time to consider what would be a necessary and proportionate response to simply maintain the legality of their blockade. Disabling a ship means knocking out its propeller. Then you can tow it wherever you want. The Israelis can do that any day of the week. They intentionally chose to got beyond what was necessary and people got killed because of that excess.

 

[toguy5252]

But my argument, as well as that of Prof. Byers, is that boarding the ships was not necessary or proportionate. If the Israelis really believed that the protesters would all remain as docile as baby lambs, why the paintball gear and pistols with live ammo and the rapid descent from helicopter etc? It just doesn't add up - especially if they were merely trying to protect some long-term legal technicality - ie: that the blockade would not remain legal in the longer term if it became selective about who got in and who didn't. All they had to do was prevent those boats from getting beyond whatever point they'd chosen when they initiated the blockade x number of years ago. This commando assault was for some other reason and it was stupid.

I agree in part. Not because of the proportionality but because the tactic was flawed. I agree that they should have disabled the ships and towed to port. If they intended the massacre that people are screaming about, which is absurd, the easiest thing would have been to sunk the boats. They went on board with the paint ball guns. They had sidearms with live ammo which in the case of a few soldiers were taken from them by the people on board and they were fired at. I have no doubt that many and perhaps most of the peole on board were well intentioned peace activists but there was certainly a group on board that was well prepared to provoke a fight and get as much PR out of this unfortunate event.You may celebrate like gryfin that one of the soldiers was thrown off a deck. Once in that situation, again whether or not they should have gotten into it, what would you suggest they should have done. simply go like lambs to slaughter. I know that would have made gryfin happy but what about you.

 

[flubadub]

I'm happy to walk you through it.
.

The twisted logic necessary to defend Israel is just so hard to follow sometimes, as in:

Israel doesn't say they are at war with Gaza, otherwise they'd have to admit that they are subject to the Geneva Conventions
Israel can't say its the occupying power at peace, otherwise they'd have to admit that they are subject to the Geneva Conventions.
So the answer is 'we are at seige'.
I think that means you are at war, no? So then Israel would be committing a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions through collective punishment.
Or you are at peace, but the occupying power?

And then there is the 'in 2005 the Israel army left the Gaza strip' so therefore its not occupied - argument.
But Israel controls entry/exit, all goods coming in, all goods coming out, water, power and aid.
And on top of that has surrounded Gaza by large walls, with armed soldiers mounted on top, in case anyone wanted to come close.
The most accurate term is prison, as in Gaza is the worlds largest prison.

Israel says there never was a Palestine, otherwise they'd have to admit that there is legitmacy to claims from Palestinian refugees.
And since there never was a Palestine, you can't have that as citizenship.
In fact, Israel says it doesn't use citizenship, only it has Jewish nationals and Arab nationals, separated by ID.
If they had different citizenship papers, then it would be come obvious that they have different rights, and it would be easy to apply the term Apartheid to Israel, since the rights afforded Jewish nationals and Arab nationals are different. Fortunately there are no Palestinian's in Israel (they have to self identify as Arab National) as that would also make it clearer.

So the blockade should really be termed a lockdown on the prison population, in retaliation for not happily accepting their new status.

The problem is the mass starvation of the prison population is a crime of war.
Fortunately since Israel doesn't recognize the legitmacy of Palestine, Lebanon, the UN, UNICEF, WHO or NATO it doesn't answer to these charges.
In fact it doesn't even recognize the legitmacy of Jewish lawyer Goldstone to criticize Israel.
And since they have the most moral army in the world, there is obviously no truth to any charges of war crimes.

There, I think I'm getting it now.

 

[slowpoke]

I agree in part. Not because of the proportionality but because the tactic was flawed. I agree that they should have disabled the ships and towed to port. If they intended the massacre that people are screaming about, which is absurd, the easiest thing would have been to sunk the boats. They went on board with the paint ball guns. They had sidearms with live ammo which in the case of a few soldiers were taken from them by the people on board and they were fired at. I have no doubt that many and perhaps most of the peole on board were well intentioned peace activists but there was certainly a group on board that was well prepared to provoke a fight and get as much PR out of this unfortunate event.You may celebrate like gryfin that one of the soldiers was thrown off a deck. Once in that situation, again whether or not they should have gotten into it, what would you suggest they should have done. simply go like lambs to slaughter. I know that would have made gryfin happy but what about you.

Me? I was tired of all this ME crap about 20 years ago and it certainly hasn't gotten any easier. My problem is that I can't resist a good argument. I see this flotilla of predominantly well-meaning fools posing zero threat yet we still managed to end up with 9 dead. We can put a guy on the fucking moon but we can't stop a glorified ferry boat without commandos jumping out of helicopters and all that military testosterone craziness. I was expecting something to happen when that flotilla arrived but this was far more stupid than I ever would have thought possible. It tells me that at least a few of the people making these kinds of decisions in Israel need to be replaced. I'd say the same about Turkey and Egypt too but I expect them to be corrupt and stupid. I expect better from Israel but I am almost always disappointed. I understand and appreciate Fuji's point about maintaining the legality of the blockade to prevent weapons from entereing Gaza but this clumsy response to the flotilla was breathtakingly inappropriate. It makes me wonder how we can ever achieve peace when neither side can resist using extreme measures like this in place of common sense. I'd like a solution that is fair to everyone, including Israel, but we'll never get one if we can't do better than this.

 

[fuji]

Israel doesn't say they are at war with Gaza, otherwise they'd have to admit that they are subject to the Geneva Conventions

Israel is at war with Hamas and is subject to the Geneva Conventions.

Israel can't say its the occupying power at peace, otherwise they'd have to admit that they are subject to the Geneva Conventions.

That makes no sense whatsoever. What does being an occupier, or not, have to do with the GC? In any case I agree Israel is subject to the GC, but disagree that it is an occupying power.

So the answer is 'we are at seige'.

No. A blockade is very, very clearly an act of war under international law. This isn't disputed by anyone so far as I know.

So then Israel would be committing a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions through collective punishment.

No, a blockade that lets through food and medicine is not collective punishment, otherwise EVERY blockade in history would be "collective punishment".

And on top of that has surrounded Gaza by large walls, with armed soldiers mounted on top, in case anyone wanted to come close.

Israel is entitled to put up walls on its borders. You may notice that the US has put up walls along its border with Mexico, too.

Israel says there never was a Palestine, otherwise they'd have to admit that there is legitmacy to claims from Palestinian refugees.

No, Israel does not say that. Israel says that Palestine was divided into three countries: Syria, Jordan, and Israel. One of those countries, Jordan, is predominately Palestinian, although it was given away as a gift by the British to the interloping Hashemites. Israel's view for many years is that Jordan is the legitimate home for the Palestinians.

More recently Israel has agreed that it would be reasonable to have a fourth Palestinian country made up of Gaza and the West Bank and has tried to empower the Palestinian Authority towrads that end, viewing Gaza and West Bank as a foreign country these days.

And since there never was a Palestine, you can't have that as citizenship.

Palestine was broken up into Israel, Jordan, and Syria. You can have a citizenship of any of those. You can also be a citizen of the PA in Gaza and the West Bank. So there are four of them.

In fact, Israel says it doesn't use citizenship, only it has Jewish nationals and Arab nationals, separated by ID.

Where are you getting this bullshit? Arab Muslim citizens of Israel are full citizens, vote, and some of them sit in their legislature. Are you just making this up as you go???

Where did you get your information that it is so badly wrong?

The problem is the mass starvation of the prison population is a crime of war.

Good thing the World Health Organization has asserted that there is no starvation then?! Your view has been entirely discredited in this respect.

Fortunately since Israel doesn't recognize the legitmacy of Palestine, Lebanon, the UN, UNICEF, WHO or NATO it doesn't answer to these charges.

Huh? UN SC, UNICEF, WHO, and NATO are all credible organizations. UNRWA, UNHCR, UNHRC, etc., are not. Israel certainly does recognize the ones you listed. Although why NATO would matter is beyond me, as Israel is not a member of NATO.

In fact it doesn't even recognize the legitmacy of Jewish lawyer Goldstone to criticize Israel.

Certainly that piece of rubbish propaganda is not worth recognizing as legitimate. EVERY SINGLE Western country voted against that commission on the grounds that it was set up to be intrinsically biased. EVERY single one. Only blubbering idiots and Palestinian apologists think that is anything other than a work of steaming propaganda.

 

[fuji]

I was expecting something to happen when that flotilla arrived but this was far more stupid than I ever would have thought possible.

So, armchair admiral, what would you have done better?

Here is the situation:

-- You believe the boats are full of people who will not resist violently

-- The boats are travelling at high speed, it would be unsafe to ram or disable them, you might kill everyone on board

-- You COULD land your forces hard and fast, with tear gas, stun grenades, and rubber bullets flying before you put your first guy on the deck, but that would look heavy handed

-- You CANNOT just let the ship through, since per international law, if you allow some ships through a blockade you are required to allow them ALL through the blockade

-- You have offered all sorts of reasonable compromises, you have offered to let them unload at Ashdod and deliver the aid across the land border, but they have refused

What do you do? I think I would do exactly what the Israelis did. They did NOT expect violent resistance or they would have done things differently. I would land my guys without first firing rubber bullets or stun grenades at anybody, and I would be surprised by the violent response, and probably wind up having a few people shot as I try and extract my soldiers to safety or gain control of the chaotic situation.

I think you should level all the blame on the hardcore militant fighters on the ship who initiated a small arms battle with a foreign military.

Now, GIVEN what happened this time, NEXT time I am sure the Israelis will do it differently: They will clear the deck using stun grenades, rubber bullets, tear gas, water cannons, whatever, before they board the ship. That will avoid the pitched battle that occurred this time, and avoid the loss of life, but nobody better dare accuse them of being "disproportionate" if they do that.

 

[hardy2003]

I'm being hyper-cynical here but why should we care? Hamas is a Islamo-Nazi organization. If you look at history, both Arab nationalism and politically genocidal Islam have their roots in the Nazi movement. Jews killing Nazi's? That's a shocker! Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, the mass murder of Jews and the realization of a fundamentalist Muslim world order with Arabs occupying the elite. If black people kill KKK members could you really blame them. Guess what? The people is Gaza are only hungry because they're at war with Israel. Women and children in Berlin and Munich were in far worse shape near the end of WWII when they were at war against us. Yes, war is awful. That's why it should only be used as a last resort. Muslims seem to feel they have the right to kill Jews, Christians, Hindus and just about anyone else. Yet hey go crazy when someone draws a picture of Mohammed. That's because they feel their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. Frankly, I'm more disgusted with their enablers in the west than I am at Moslems who have been brainwashed since birth.

Anyway, this incident has been given too much press. Nice people are killed every day by extremists. Christians are persecuted is Muslim countries and it barely gets reported. A bunch of Nazi sympathizers get killed and people bellyache. One thing I'll say about the German Nazi's is they weren't a bunch of crybabies. Actions have consequences. No one forced these cretins on the ships.

 

[gryfin]

No one forced these cretins on the ships.

You are right. The Israeli cretins sailed there and forced their way on-board while heavily armed.

 

[hardy2003]

I actually meant that the "peace activists" were the cretins. But I see your point. The Israelis should have just torpedoed the ships....sort of like your North Korean pals!!

 

[flubadub]

Certainly that piece of rubbish propaganda is not worth recognizing as legitimate. EVERY SINGLE Western country voted against that commission on the grounds that it was set up to be intrinsically biased. EVERY single one. Only blubbering idiots and Palestinian apologists think that is anything other than a work of steaming propaganda.

By Western government's you mean the US, now don't you?
The EU supported the Goldstone findings, as did most of the rest of the world.

 

[Rockslinger]

I thought I heard on the radio this morning that the Israelis used the same tactic to board 5 other ships before this one and there were no problems. Is this true?

 

[basketcase]

That's what press reports say. Only one ship had a bunch of 'peace activists' who chose to assault the Israelis the minute they touched the ship.

 

[flubadub]

That's what press reports say. Only one ship had a bunch of 'peace activists' who chose to assault the Israelis the minute they touched the ship.

The blockade is a war crime according to the Goldstone report.
Attacking a Turkish ship in international waters an act of war against Turkey.
The mass malnutrition of Gaza a war crime.

Israel won't have a leg to stand on at the Hague for this one.
Just add a few more names to those who can no longer travel outside Israel.