Freedom Flotilla hijacked

Remove all ads!

Seems like Israel is intent on burning whatever little shred of international support and sympathy they might have had. The attack and seizure on the aid flottilla beggars belief. What I am mostly interested is hearing the view of this from those here on this forum who are very staunch Israel supporters.

In case you have no idea what I am talking about here is a link: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest/index.html?hpt=T1

 

The issue is more complex than it is at first glance (no doubt colored by the outrage one feels when one reads the article title.) If you look at a video such as this one, it seems to be clear that was Israel is saying is correct: IDF soldiers were immediately attacked without direct provocation*. Of course, given that the video was made by the IDF it could be that they only released the ones that best suited their interests, but this video made by a member of the crew tells the same story.

*I wonder whether the boarding of the fleet can be seen as a provocation. The ships were violating a blockade.

 

To provide some context: The Israeli blockade of Gaza is a thing that has been ongoing for a long time without getting much coverage in the US. Most people don't have an idea what that means practically. They also can hardly imagine the plain daily harassment Palestinians endure at the hands of the Israelis. Example: After ordered to do so by a court the Israeli Army opens a road for Palestinians - but blocks the exits. Follow the letter, and give a **** about the spirit. Not to mention the checkpoints.

Israel allowed shoes into Gaza the first time in three years a couple weeks back? Because shoes are 'dual use products' since soldiers ... wear shoes? By that standard, what isn't? Bread is a dual use product because soldiers ... do eat? Speaking of which, half a year back Israel blocked the delivery of pasta to Gaza. Or coriander. Israel two weeks ago blocked mail into and from Gaza.

Some examples: Israel allows into Gaza canned meat and tuna, but not canned fruit. Israel allows into Gaza mineral water, but not fruit juice. Israel allows into Gaza sesame paste (tahini) but not jam. Israel allows the Palestinians tea and coffee, but not chocolate ... it appear to me to be awfully arbitrary.

~ * ~ ​

Anyway, I read the Israeli troops killed 10 to 19 people, and wounded more? If that's true this will further erode the Israeli image.

Live blogging on Al Jazeera:
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/middle-east/2010/05/31/aftermath-israels-attack-gaza-flotilla
and on Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/may/31/israel-troops-gaza-ships

It would be stupid if the protesters attacked - the whole idea of the flotilla was to be stopped while offering no resistance, thus making Israel look like, well, a nation imposing a naval blockade. It was clear that Israel would respond with force. I am not inclined to believe Israeli assertions or videos that they were attacked at face value, of course they would blame the activists, and the attacks came in just .... perfect. Anyway, if it was true that the Palestinians indeed attacked, they would have been really extraordinarily stupid.

 

The flotilla was a bad idea in the first place. They were warned they would be boarded if they violated Israeli national waters, so I'm not surprised at that. The Israelis offered to take the aid and deliver it, though I understand some people not being willing to take their word for it. On the other hand, though, I can understand the Israelis not allowing any 'aid' though without at least a thorough, piece-by-piece investigation.

As for the deaths, if the activists did attack, then it was justified, and they were stupid. If the activists didn't offer any resistance, then it was murder, and the Israelis were stupid. I personally suspect the activists attacked, just because I'm sure the Israelis know how much image they could loose, while the activists may well have thought they had nothing to loose. Either way, someone was catastrophically stupid.

 

The incident occurred on international water.

 

In light of the above examples, are you?

 

Your statement is based on the assumption that the blockade is right when it is the cause of a very serious humanitarian crisis.

Check the webpage of the International Committee of the Red Cross and see for yourself.

Here is another link you may want to check out: UN survey about the humanitarian impact of two years of blockade on the Gaza Strip.

Joacqin already pointed this out but I'll say it a second time: it happened in international waters.

The Israeli forces attacked and used deadly force against peace protesters in international waters but it doesn't matter as they will get off scot free because nobody cares about the humanitarian plight of the people living in the Gaza Strip anyway.

Governments spare no expenses and no amount of trouble chasing after terrorists but they won't lift a finger to prevent situations that can only create more people with nothing to lose.

Happy, well-fed and free people don't kill themselves in suicide bombings.

 

Turkey has recalled its ambassador from Israel over the incident. Ankara warned that further supply vessels will be sent to Gaza, escorted by the Turkish Navy. I wonder where that's going to lead to. The Turks are sure throwing their weight around these days.

Interesting to note that Israel, ever since their assault on Gaza has managed through its actions, to reduce what was once an alliance to near hostility. Quite a feat.

There was the unbelievable idiocy of Liebermann's deputy Danny Ayalon boasting of having humiliated the Turkish ambassador. And now Lieberman has declared he will never accept Turkey as a mediator in talks with Syria (probably not because of Turkey, but rather because he doesn't want to negotiate at all) - it's not as if, with the Golan and all that, they had anything to talk about.

PS: Why the Gaza boat deaths are a huge deal

 

There are worse humanitarian crises, nobody cares about them either.

 

And that's your reason for not caring about that one? This is not an argument, it's just indifference.

By the way what rationale do you use to compare between such crises so that some are worthier than others?

Has it got to be as bad as Rwanda or Darfur to get you interested?

NGOs have a lot of work to do in the world today and not enough means because people care more about the latest videoclip by some popstar or the world cup or the super bowl to give a damn about people dying in third world countries or in their own streets.

 

One more thing, that joa rightly pointed at - the ships were in international waters, and travelled under Turkish flag. In light of that it is beside the point whether that was a stupid of brilliant idea.

Attacks by a country on ships of other nations on the high seas are an act of war. That's serious in its own right, and in part explains why the Turks are so angry.

It this wasn't a state action, and the Israeli commandos acted on their own, their raid was an act of piracy and they were criminals (unlikely). Turkey could then demand them to be extradited to be tried under Turkish law.

The Israeli Government could have waited until the ship was illegally in Israeli territorial waters they would have had every right to arrest all on board. They chose not to do that. Quite arrogantly I think.

Reliably, the US vetoed the UN criticism of the incident.

 

Spoke with an Israeli internet friend yesterday, known the guy for years and we have discussed politics before. I have disagreed with him but it was possible to see where he was coming from. Now, now he was under the paranoia induced masspsychosis that seems to have stricken the entire country. They don't see the world as others do, he vehemently attacked European media for being arabloving. My point is that I have known this guy for years, I am pretty sure he is quite moderate, know his friend as well he once told me he was going to a party where they celebrated a mates first kill of a Palestinian he is not so moderate. If a moderate Israeli who spends most of his time online with "anti-Israeli" Europeans thinks it is perfectly OK to assault aid columns on international water then I dread to think of what the so called hard liners think is acceptable. Oh and he did actually drop the "Everyone hates the jews" line, for real. The entire country rests on a foundation of fear, a lot of it justified, but you can't base a nation on it.

 

Yeah, the Foreign Policy article expresses it well:

The Israeli course is getting them bogged down. The damage that Israel has caused itself internationally can hardly be exaggerated.

 

That's not entirely true. If the ships are seen as an imminent threat, an attack can be justified. If the ships were barrelling toward the blockade at full steam and showed no sign of stopping or changing course, and especially after they announced their destination, an attack in international waters can be justified.

 

That was indeed expected (by the way the link is not working).

Nope. You're just trying to find excuses for the attack with your suppositions. The fact is that the "incident" happened in international waters and international waters can be crossed by anyone regardless of what the intended destination is.

You may be a staunch supporter of pre-emptive strikes (as in shoot first ask questions later) but that doesn't justify anything as far as international law is concerned. As Ragusa pointed out the attack was either an act of piracy or an act of war.

 

I don't think so. Not unless they can prove to be military threat, which in this case is practically impossible. International waters, by definition, are open to all. If this had happened in territorial waters, it would be a relatively minor issue, like the ones Ragusa is linking to (not insignificant, just not that visible). Now it is a full-blown diplomatic scandal, though how major the overall impact is is debatable.

I just don't see the reason the boats would be attacked in international waters. As for "provocation" on part of the people in the boats... you know, when armed people are boarding your ships, in international waters, THAT is usually considered a pretty major "provocation" in itself. Sure, it's generally not a great idea to try to attack them with what's at hand, but I think it's quite dishonest intellectually to put the blame squarely on them. BTW, does anyone know if it is customary to have weapons on civilian ships?

 

In many regions weapons are a necessary evil for civilian ships. They are needed to ward off piracy, but call the intent of the civilian vessel into question by port authorities and naval units.

A couple of things ... boarding a vessel is inherently dangerous for any naval unit. The military members boarding the vessel are usually doing so because they believe something illegal is going on (around the US it's primarily drug runners) -- violence is always a concern. As a result you have some very nervous sailors who really want nothing more than to get back to their own ship (and not in a body bag). Only a fool whips out a weapon during a boarding. The correct action is to allow the boarding (resisting a boarding will usually draw naval gun fire ... which will ruin your whole day), cooperate with the heavily armed and very nervous sailors, then take legal recourse (which we all know the Isreali's will ignore -- but nobody dies).

The whole reason for a blockade is to stop illegal supplies from getting into a region -- which includes national waters. Search and seizure is almost always done in international waters (you simply can't go into a country's territorial waters and seize a shipment, that is a major violation). The boarding by the Isreali Navy can only occur in uncontested Isreali waters or international water without it being an act of war.

Stupidity on both sides in my opinion.

 

I won't pretend to know what constitutes an act of war in this case, but surely there is some violation of international law here. Piracy?

 

True, Splunge -- blockades can be acts of war, but they are allowed (and all that go with them) as long as they follow basic rules. A nation is allowed to go to great lengths to protect it's citizens. The international community has condemned the blockade with even the US asking for the blockade to ease, but no one has authorized action against Israel (basically, everyone is saying 'bad Israel ... baaad Israel' but no one is will to 'put up or shut up'). I don't know of any international law that's been violated although some are arguing the Fourth Geneva Convention, but it's a weak argument.

 

Well, I can see why you would pick up a club, rod, knife, or whatever other makeshift weapon you can get your hands on when you see commandos repelling onto your ship armed with automatic weapons.