meanfreepath | (no subject)

All right, I'll take the other side.

Why are they laying siege to Gaza? Well, obviously the answer is that Gaza is launching missiles at Israel. But why are they blocking humanitarian aid?

Further, I'm unclear on these "potentially deadly weapons". The story I read suggested that when people came onto their ship from a helicopter, the ship's crew used poles and tools to try to beat them off. It sounds a lot more like defending yourself from boarders using whatever was at hand than "attack[ing] with potentially deadly weapons". Yes, a wrench can be a deadly weapon... but to call it that makes it sound like you want it treated like a gun.

Is the story I heard wrong, and the ship used guns/bayonets/grenades?

Yeah, so I'm also kind of confused about what happened with this situation, but I don't think Israel is exactly in the right here...

I mean, I guess there's some sense to the blockade, ie. to make conditions even worse in Gaza to try to drive Hamas out of power (?), and this ship was blatantly trying to challenge that policy, so that demanded some sort of response, unless Israel was willing to back down from its blockade. (And maybe Israel should drop the blockade--I don't know--although it probably would be seen as a major sign of weakness to do it under these circumstances.) But either way, it seems like Israel was much more aggressive than it needed to be in responding. (By the way, Jerome, I'm not sure what you're referring to with potentially deadly weapons, but again I haven't read/heard all that much about the details of this story yet... But my impression was that the people on board the ship only started to fight back AFTER the Israeli soldiers started attacking them, which puts more of the blame on Israel's decision to respond so aggressively to the incursion.)

NPR says it's unclear who attacked whom first, after the Israelis had boarded the ship.

Yeah, OK... Still, even if they weren't the first to attack, the Israeli army had just boarded the ship (by helicopter, at that), so it seems like the options for the people on the ship were either immediate surrender, or a fight; it might have been nice for the Israelis to try some negotiation first... (Or maybe there was reason to believe that that wouldn't get them anywhere, I don't know--but still, regardless of who actually attacked first on board the ship, it does seem like the Israelis were probably the ones primarily responsible for the situation escalating to violence as quickly as it did... Or am I missing other important details?)

I think this whole thing is really weird partly because it's been in the works for days. I've been cringing in anticipation of the outcome this whole time. Why didn't they communicate in advance? Both sides seem to have acted immaturely.

erm, well I guess Israel actually did send warnings to the ship that it would not be permitted to pass the blockade.

and I guess some previous aid ships had been permitted to pass the blockade

I just found this video of the event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6jDIQr59Sk&NR=1

This does sound like Israelis trying negotiation first.

I would personally consider metal poles and the like potentially deadly weapons. I'm pretty sure that if I were to start attacking a police officer with a crowbar or maybe even a baseball bat, in most jurisdictions the officer would be justified in shooting me, and I wouldn't think it unjustified. There is certainly a long history in warfare of using ersatz objects, such as entrenching spades, as lethal weapons in hand-to-hand combat, even as recently as Vietnam.

Some accounts I have read also indicate that the protesters seized guns from the Israelis. There's footage that shows some of the commandos being thrown overboard. Two Israelis suffered gunshot wounds. I would grant that it is possible for one or more of these cases to be from friendly fire, but that even if it was the Israelis who fired first the amount of violence they met while boarding more than justified the use of proportionate lethal force.

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.

Hmm, I hadn't heard about this at all before today--was it in the news because the ship was heading towards Gaza with clear plans to challenge the blockade? Or was it actually sitting in the Mediterranean trying to convince the Israelis to make an exception to (or drop) the blockade? I'm guessing it's the former?

Oh, and I'm also not sure that I'd call what was on that YouTube video negotiation; I mean, they gave them a chance to turn around, but Israel clearly never made any offer to do anything about the policy that was being challenged. And I mean, maybe that's a justifiable decision, I don't know--but it seems like the current Israeli government is generally very stubborn, and insists on sticking to what it thinks it needs to do for defense, no matter how many other countries it angers... (

ccommack also raises some interesting issues about why Israel really shouldn't have picked this situation to stick stubbornly and absolutely to a policy that seems questionable to begin with...)

Blockades, and their maintenance through force, are a legal and long-established tradition in warfare. To my mind it would have been justifiable in military terms for the commandos to have withdrawn once attacked and then to have naval or air assets blow the ship out of the water.

they gave them a chance to turn around

That's not how I heard it. The soldiers said that if the ship docked at Ashdod, then the supplies would be delivered. (Except not the cement.)

a legal and long-established tradition in warfare

Assuming that you are at war.

Hmmm...yeah, you're right--that is importantly different from telling the ship to turn around.

Of course, the people on the ship might say that they don't trust that the supplies would get there through Israel (although apparently Israel did offer to allow them to observe the transit, so I don't know how much weight that holds).

More importantly, as I understand it, it seems like the goal was actually to challenge the blockade (which the people on the ship considered unjust in itself, I think?), rather than just to deliver one ship's worth of aid. But then, I guess that might lead to a negotiating position that's just about as inflexible as the Israelis'.

I don't know--as with most things involving Israel, it's hard to really know which side is more right, without much more knowledge than is easily obtainable...but yet, people (e.g., on my Facebook news feed) tend to want to take a black-and-white position anyway...

Now posted on my lj: Do I want to go to a pro-Israel infosession?

Hmm, I hadn't heard about this at all before today--was it in the news because the ship was heading towards Gaza with clear plans to challenge the blockade? Or was it actually sitting in the Mediterranean trying to convince the Israelis to make an exception to (or drop) the blockade? I'm guessing it's the former?

Oh, I guess it left Cyprus yesterday, so "days" is an exaggeration. I heard about it on NPR while it was en route. I don't completely know the extent of the communication between the Marmara and the IDF prior to the helicopter boarding, but based on the IDF video I'm guessing the Marmara wasn't really interested in talking to the IDF.

based on the IDF video I'm guessing the Marmara wasn't really interested in talking to the IDF.

Interesting--but of course, beyond that video, it also sounds like the IDF/the Israeli government wasn't very interested in talking to the Marmara. And they're the ones with big guns...so if they don't want to be accused of overly aggressive use of those big guns, it seems like they have more of a responsibility to talk. The ship was just being peacefully provocative, as far as I can tell; the IDF was the one contemplating (and eventually taking) violent military action...

The metaphor I encountered online a few days ago which I find apt is: Israel is an abused child who has now grown up and is abusing others. Only a heartless bastard wouldn't feel some sympathy, and it may be unclear what would be the just thing to do, but when his kids start coming to school with bruises you absolutely must start moving heaven and earth to stop it.

Heh, what is North Korea? Ameria?

it seems like the goal was actually to challenge the blockade

OK, this raises an interesting question: Suppose you want to challenge the blockade. What is the best way to do it?

Well, the blockade's official purpose is to keep weapons out of Gaza, because such weapons will surely be used to attack Israel. The blockade's purpose isn't to keep the Gazan people in poverty -- that would be evil and counterproductive of Israel. It just happens to have that effect.

So the number one goal would be to challenge the blockade with materials that are purely humanitarian. This is complicated by the fact that Israel bars certain ambiguous materials from reaching Gaza, like cement and other building materials.

If I were going to challenge the blockade, I would want to carry items that were indisputably humanitarian.

But maybe it's a better challenge to the blockade if the IDF shoots and kills some of the people on the aid flotilla. But something tells me that there won't be any real changes as a result of this event.

Curious... what would you have done if you were in charge of Israel?

I'm not actually certain of the purpose of the blockade--is it just to keep weapons out? Or is it to keep the Gazan people in poverty to punish them for electing Hamas leaders, and maybe persuade them to elect somebody other than Hamas? If it's the latter, that seems stupid and counterproductive to me, but that doesn't mean it's not part of the thinking.

Otherwise... Well, i think you're right that what this ship did is the most effective way to challenge the blockade. Also, though, I think the IDF shooting some people on the ship is probably better for the political goals of the people on the ship than it is for Israel. After all, what happened is bringing a lot of attention to the issue, and there does seem to be pressure on the Israeli government as a result of this to stop being so hard-line. That doesn't mean that they'll listen, of course, but I think they'll have to consider it more seriously than they would have before this. (That might also mean that Israel would have been better-served letting this ship land in Gaza, even if they did want to keep the general blockade up. But then that would have made them look weak, and there clearly would have had to be a breaking point somewhere--but that breaking point could have been in a situation that didn't make Israel look as bad as it does now. So then the question is whether a loosening of the blockade to avoid conflict here would have actually been a problem for Israel's interests, or whether it's just that Netanyahu and/or others who were responsible just didn't want to look weak.)