(no subject)

[meanfreepath]

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?

Comments

[ccommack]

Well, first off, if I were in charge of Israel, I would not be blockading Gaza. It's a ridiculous, stupid, self-defeating, and dishonorable policy. But if I were in a position where I had no choice and really, really, needed to enforce the blockade? Well... There are plenty of options to get an unarmed merchant vessel to stop. I might actually have authorized boarding by helicopter, but in daylight and after due warning had been issued, including through naval gunnery across the bow. Mostly, I would have refrained from storming the ship until it was at or imminently about to cross the 12-mile limit, or any alternative announced and posted blockade line.

[ccommack]

Various corners of the internet also point out that it ought to be easy for a modern navy with precision gunnery and/or frogmen to simply disable a merchant ship and then tow it into port at leisure. They say this assuming that the IDF had this option and deliberately chose not to take it; given how many stories I hear about the IDF involve rank incompetence at the institutional level, I wouldn't even assume that much.

[meanfreepath.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. Operations with frogmen, to say blow off a propeller, are fraught with risk for the attacking side. Modern naval gunnery is precise, but there's an even greater risk of a shell/missile missing its intended target and causing more loss of life than a boarding party, or rendering the entire ship unseaworthy.

[ccommack]

Like I said, I don't necessarily trust the IDF to know how to pull off basic tasks.