meanfreepath | (no subject)

(no subject)

Why does Israel have to be put on the defensive internationally after its commandos use limited force in response to being attacked with potentially deadly weapons? Would anyone be complaining if the men and women of the US Navy were to use lethal force to defend themselves in the course of interdicting Somali pirates?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Seizing a cargo ship could have been done 1) in daylight, and 2) within the 12-mile limit, instead of in international waters. The way it was actually done smacks of piracy itself, as opposed to a legitimate use of a state's naval power.

Even if the ships were trying to run a legal blockade (which it's not clear that it is), they have legally done nothing wrong until they cross the 12-mile line. Also, Israel picked the wrong country to antagonize; not only was Turkey formerly one of its own best friends and allies, but seizing Turkish-flagged merchant shipping in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea constitutes sovereign aggression, which (if things escalate) qualifies Turkey to request assistance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

The point of a dawn raid is generally the element of surprise. Clearly this didn't succeed, but to my mind overwhelming the ship through a successful surprise attack would have accomplished the objective of stopping the vessel with the fewest injuries on either side, as well as serve to remind the world that Israel, perhaps reeling from the passport flap during the Mahmoud al-Mabhouh assassination, is not to be trifled with.

You're arguing the small point and ignoring the big one.

Thank you.

Israel had given plenty of warning that the flotilla was in hostile waters and had ordered it to divert to Ashdod, which the Mavi Marmara had refused to do. Would any reasonable person expect it to sail right up to the 12-mile line and then turn around? The alternative would have been for the Israelis to wait for the ship to come within an arbitrary line and lose a potential tactical advantage.

More fundamentally, I would question whether the twelve-mile territorial waters limit is really relevant here, in the context of a blockade and a war/police action. In Vietnam, we certainly mined and blockaded harbors such as Haiphong.

"We're at war". "We're at war". "We're at war". Same goddamn litany that can be used to justify anything.

Look, if Israel really wants to be at war with the whole damn world, Israel will eventually get its wish -- as long as they keep pushing -- and the results will probably not bode well for Israel.

Their current strategy of treating some of the most starving and desperate people in the world as incredibly deadly hostile combatants has certainly borne rich fruit for them over the years. If they lump every outsider who takes umbrage at this assessment of the situation as also being hostile combatants the Levant is likely to get even more fun to live in soon.

"If the intent was to surprise and overwhelm the passengers, why not break off the attempt when it was clear they were not surprised or overwhelmed?"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/06/gaza_flotilla

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only