Israel?

[Ddrak]

Is Israel trying to get the entire world off side? They seem to be on a course of self destruction at the moment. Attacking a ship in international waters really isn't the optimum way to show the world how you're the "good guy", and without continued international support, Israel is dead.

Dd

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I'm willing to reserve judgement until all the facts come out as I've heard from different sources that both sides fired first.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The activists were reportedly armed with slingshots, clubs and maybe knives. They were also contained on a ship and couldn't run. This did not warrant the use of deadly force. Tear gas and less-than-lethal should have been tried first. Or a simple blockade of the ship. There was no reason to open fire on what is, essentially, a humanitarian mission.

[Kulaf]

I have read reports that they secured arms from some of the first comando's that hit the deck. Sounds like a load of bull to me but that is what they are saying.

[Partha]

I loved the two statements early on from Israeli sources where one claimed the passengers were throwing rocks and another one claimed they threw a firebomb while on a boat in the middle of the ocean.

[JecksS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcb ... r_embedded#!

No other comment.

[Torakus]

In accordance with Lurker's rule of Opinions (see the Sestak thread), until one of you chuckle heads actually does a non-compliant boarding, you are officially not qualified to comment. From what I see in that video, deadly force was appropriate. Obviously without more details I don't know if the use of deadly force was terminated in a timely fashion, but when someone is hitting me or my team with pipes, and in one case heaving a team member over the side, they are going to get a bullet in them. I also do not know why the vessel had to be boarded, but a few hundred tons of steel, aluminum and fuel is a mighty big weapon at sea. If you have ever seen two ships collide at sea you will understand.

Tora

[Ddrak]

I have no doubts the soldiers were attacked (though the video doesn't shed any light on who acted first). The point is what the hell was the IDF doing boarding a boat in international waters? Last I looked (and correct me if I'm wrong here) they have exactly the same rights as Somali Pirates to board a ship that's not in their waters and frankly the people on the boat have every right to beat the hell out of them with metal poles for it. Seizing a ship in this manner is very much government sponsored piracy and I just don't get the motivation behind not waiting for them to be in Israeli territory to act.

My complaint here wasn't with the soldiers who were obviously under orders to board the ship (aside from the fact they were apparently following an illegal order), but the idiots higher up in the IDF and government that continue to push a policy of needless aggression which is costing Israel far more than they could possibly gain. It's not going to take too many raids on ships full of civilians before even the US can't even defend them against world opinion.

Watching the video doesn't really change my opinions here. How is the fault anyone but Israels for the deaths and injuries on both sides? A ship may be a big weapon, so can people board Israeli ships too and have a legitimate complaint when they get attacked?

Dd

[Partha]

If this was a cruise ship and those commandos were Iranian, Embar, Jecks and company would be agitating for medals for the lot.

[Kulaf]

I think calling it government sponsored piracy is a bit overly dramatic. They have set up a blockcade on Gaza. They likely boarded a ship which refused to stop for the blockcade to search it or make sure it didn't continue to run the blockcade. I seriously doubt they are going to hold the crew hostage for money or take the cargo.

I am also trying to understand how this occured in "international waters" when my understanding of the definition only applies to 200+ nautical miles off your coast. Is there some convention regarding travel in the Med that makes the border smaller?

I would also note several of the "peace artivists" were wearing gas masks. Sort of strange to take gas masks on a mission of peace.

[JecksS]

Last I looked (and correct me if I'm wrong here) they have exactly the same rights as Somali Pirates to board a ship that's not in their waters

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b50 ... 1f002d49ce

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

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;

(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;

(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

[Ddrak]

I think calling it government sponsored piracy is a bit overly dramatic.

Probably, but they did seize the ship prior to any attempt to run a blockade (which eliminates Jecks' position).

They have set up a blockcade on Gaza. They likely boarded a ship which refused to stop for the blockcade to search it or make sure it didn't continue to run the blockcade. I seriously doubt they are going to hold the crew hostage for money or take the cargo.

Purpose is irrelevant. They are holding the ship, passengers and cargo though, which could easily be called "piracy" under any particular definition you care to name. The ship wasn't anywhere near any blockade at the time, though it did have a publicly stated intention of heading to Gaza.

I am also trying to understand how this occured in "international waters" when my understanding of the definition only applies to 200+ nautical miles off your coast. Is there some convention regarding travel in the Med that makes the border smaller?

Every news report I've seen has the location specified as "international waters": http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/106224 ... demnations

UN chief Ban Ki-moon said he was "shocked" by the naval assault on a convoy carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists through international waters, while capitals summoned Israel's ambassadors.

Do you have any evidence that the intercepted flotilla wasn't? It was basically due south of Cyprus at the time.

I would also note several of the "peace artivists" were wearing gas masks. Sort of strange to take gas masks on a mission of peace.

I'm guessing they were expecting tear gas. Is there some rule that allows the boarding and seizing of ships if people are wearing gas masks because I'm struggling to see how this is relevant.

None of the legalities changes my original statement that Israel seems hell bent on self destruction. Alienating Turkey is about the stupidest thing they've done since they tried invading Lebanon without any serious plan a few years back.

Dd

[Kulaf]

Ok here are the definitions to the best of my understanding:

Teritorial Waters - Extend 14 miles off the coast of the country in question. These are soveriegn waters.

Exlusive Economic Zone - Extends 200 miles off the coast of the country in question. This gives rights to marine resources.

International Waters: Technically is anywhere 14+ miles off the coast of a country.....but since the country has a right to interdict vessels violating it's EEZ, I would argue that it is at the 200+ mile range. But by UN Convention it is 14+ miles off the coast.

My understanding is that the incident occured 86 miles off the coast.

[Kulaf]

As un interesting asside......Israel has never ratified the 3rd United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea, and Turkey is not a signator. This convention attempted to set the boundries of Teritorial Waters. Since neither nation recognizes the 14 mile limit formally......it will be very hard to say this occured in International Waters and have it actually mean anything.

[Freecare Spiritwise]

With friends like Isreal, who needs enemies...

[JecksS]

Purpose is irrelevant.

Please re-direct your attention to the relevant law which I have cited here.

If the purpose of the vessel was to run a blockade then Israel had the right to attack it. The stated purpose of the vessel was to run Israels blockade.

Probably, but they did seize the ship prior to any attempt to run a blockade (which eliminates Jecks' position).

They had already stated their intention. That is enough. In maritime operations intention does matter. If I launch a boat and publicly state I am going to pirate an oil tanker concerned navies do not have to wait for me to attempt to do so. They can take appropriate action when they find me.

Please review this story from May.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100529/wl ... azademoaid

Hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists at sea in the eastern Mediterranean were poised late Saturday to launch a bid to break the blockade of Gaza at the risk of a confrontation with the Israeli navy.

They were told what would happen.

[Lurker]

Israel had the legal right to do what they did, and when enforcing a blockade it doesn't matter if the waters are International or not. Israel apparently tried for several weeks to get the government of Turkey to stop these ships from ever sailing but were told that it was a private venture. Five of the six boats were stopped without incident. I have no idea why things got so horribly out of hand on that one boat.

All that said, I agree with Ddrak that none of this helps Israel. It's almost as if the Israeli government tries to take steps to make peace less likely at every turn.

[Ddrak]

Jecks,

Fair enough. I still think there will be significant debate over the technicalities and none of it is going to end up pretty for Israel in terms of its international standing. Gaza's supporters have figured out that busting a blockade with civilian ships always results in a PR win whether you make it or not.


Kula,

Had that agreement applied and not the San Remo one Jecks linked, I was under the belief that the 24nm limit was where vessels could be stopped for random inspection. My understanding of the EEZ was that it allowed free traffic but the ocean resources belonged to the nation.

The point that they had the stated intention of breaking a blockade seems to override any of the discussion about territorial waters.


Generally,

In any case, I still maintain that Israel is just flat out stupid. Look at the video Jecks posted - the IDF are rappelling down into a violent crowd. That's never going to end in a good way. The whole flotilla was an anti-Israel PR exercise designed to bait the IDF into over-aggressive action and has succeeded beyond anything they probably dreamed of.

End result - Israel gets baited into a trap that results in their entire blockade being made ineffectual as Egypt reopens the borders. In addition, their relationship with Turkey is significantly soured, their international image takes a massive nosedive on the heels of the passport stupidity that pissed off half the world.

Israel can't survive without world support and playing America's spoiled brat is a road to its own destruction. Iran must be pissing itself laughing.

Dd

[Embar Angylwrath]

Israel really misplayed this. There are other ways to prevent a ship from beaking a blockade, especially if there are no military assets to deal with. Pretty easy to disable a ship by damaging the screws (propellers). If the screws dont turn, the ship is dead in the water. Dropping steel mesh in front of the ship would have solved the issue. You can't run a blockade if the ship has no forward motion. There was no need to drop a few human assets into a potentially hostile crowd. In fact, it goes against every policing and military doctrine I know of.. UNLESS.. you're trying to find a reason to open up with deadly force.

If you have superior assets (as did the IDF) and superior training (as did the IDF) and plenty of advance warning (as did the IDF), there's never a reason to expose troops to hostile action unless you need the reaction to the troops to trigger some part of the strategic plan. And let's be honest.. this wasn't a tactical engagement, it was a strategic one. Teh Israeis wanted to provoke a response, and this one provided just enough legitimacy to the Israelis to bring about the heavy handed tactics they are known for. Throw some rocks? Here's some bullets in return. Couple of rockets land in an open field? Here's some artillery shelling. Slingshots? Well, we answer those with a tank assault. I don't want my response to be confused with condemnation of the IDF soldiers that were tossed into the crucible as bait. Those poor bastards were only following orders. But you can bet Israeli command was counting on the prospect of just a few soldiers versus a worked-up mob of hundreds to increase the odds of a violent response. If they wanted to reduce the volatility, the IDF would have made an overwhelming show of force... air gunships, destroyers with guns trained at the waterline and screws of the ship, and a coule of shots fired near waterlines and screws to bring the point home. That, and a broadcast message that any resistance to boarding would be met with deadly force.

That said, I sympathasize with the Israelis on certain aspects of their existence. If they lifted the embargo, does anyone on this board really beleive weapons wouldn't flood into the area? Its the whole reason Egypt cooperates with border control. They know that open borders means an influx in weapons to the Palestinians, which means a destabilization on their own borders (and a massive refugee crisis into Egypt should Israel level Gaza.. which they would if they were attacked.) The Egyptions are no friend of Israel. They cooperate because they have no choice if they want stable borders.

As to our response to the issue...

All of you know I'm no fan of the Clintons. But I must say that Hillary has done a very good job as SecState in the Obama admin. She's done a good job here as well. She's walking a razor line of condemning actions, but not condemning Israel. And I think her response is in part responsible for Turkey ratcheting down rhetoric (the ship was a Turkish flagged ship, IIRC). I also think Obama relies on her more than he (or her) lets on. Her foreign policy instincts have proved to be better than her domestic policy ones. I really feel she's in her element as SecState. She'll have to work behind a lot of curtains to help restore stability to the region in the next few weeks. Personally, I think her proximity and access to former and current Presidents carry a lot of weight, and give her a unique perspective and advantage than other SecStates. If the SecState position was elected, and seeing how well she's performed in it, I'd vote to put her there.

[Partha]

If you have superior assets (as did the IDF) and superior training (as did the IDF) and plenty of advance warning (as did the IDF), there's never a reason to expose troops to hostile action unless you need the reaction to the troops to trigger some part of the strategic plan. And let's be honest.. this wasn't a tactical engagement, it was a strategic one. Teh Israelis wanted to provoke a response, and this one provided just enough legitimacy to the Israelis to bring about the heavy handed tactics they are known for. Throw some rocks? Here's some bullets in return. Couple of rockets land in an open field? Here's some artillery shelling. Slingshots? Well, we answer those with a tank assault. I don't want my response to be confused with condemnation of the IDF soldiers that were tossed into the crucible as bait. Those poor bastards were only following orders. But you can bet Israeli command was counting on the prospect of just a few soldiers versus a worked-up mob of hundreds to increase the odds of a violent response. If they wanted to reduce the volatility, the IDF would have made an overwhelming show of force... air gunships, destroyers with guns trained at the waterline and screws of the ship, and a coule of shots fired near waterlines and screws to bring the point home. That, and a broadcast message that any resistance to boarding would be met with deadly force.

Agreed with Embar 110% on this. I believe it was Ha'aretz who called the ministers who made the decision on how to go about this 'The Seven Idiots'. I'd also hope that the commander on scene who dropped paratroops armed with only sidearms and fucking paintball guns into a potentially violent situation would be at least cashiered and hopefully serve stockade time for being a criminal dumbass.

Turkish papers make an important point about all of this.

Turkey had earlier accused Israel of violating the international laws that prohibits countries from interfering in the navigation of ships on international waters. Some experts, however, argue, citing examples from the past, that not every instance of interference on international waters would necessarily mean a breach of the law.

“Countries could stop vessels at a reasonable distance in international waters if they believe that they could pose a security threat,” Hakan Hanlı, a senior attorney-at-law and an expert on international law, told the Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review on Tuesday. The lawyer, however, also criticized the way Israeli security forces handled the situation.

“The first thing Israel had to do, according to law, was to show themselves to the boats and inform them that they’re ready to interfere. Next, according to the same laws, they should have fired at the front of the boats to slow them down or change their course,” he said. “If the boat doesn’t stop, they are not to fire, but to come abreast of the boat with their own boat in order to change its course.”

In addition, Hanlı said, “the Israeli government should have contacted other countries, especially Turkey, to ensure that the country whose flag is flown on the boat contacts the captain and orders a change of course.” Israel, he added, did none of these things.