They’re just on the other side:
Upon boarding the ships, the soldiers encountered fierce resistance from the passengers who were armed with knives, bats and metal pipes. The soldiers used non-lethal measures to disperse the crowd. The activists, according to an IDF report, succeeded in stealing two handguns from soldiers and opened fire, leading to an escalation in violence.
Al Jazeera on Monday broadcasted footage from the Gaza flotilla’s lead vessel, the Mavi Marmara, showing Israeli Navy commandos boarding the ship. Helicopters could also be seen flying overhead.
“It was like a well-planned lynch,” one IDF officer said. “These people were anything but peace activists.”
As Claudia Rossett notes, this isn’t about peace, or freedom, or humanitarian aid. It’s about making a terrorist-supporting political statement, with the added frisson of killing Jews.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s more:
In a later search aboard the Marmara, soldiers found caches of bats, clubs, knives, and slingshots used by the rioters ahead of the IDF takeover. It appeared the activists were well prepared for a fight…
…It appears that the error in planning the operation was the estimate that passengers were indeed political activists and members of humanitarian groups who seek a political provocation, but would not resort to brutal violence.
They won’t make that mistake again.
[Late evening update]
A photomontage of “peace” activists.
And it’s time for Israel to stop playing Mr. Nice Guy.
It certainly hasn’t bought them much.
Even the Israeli press gets it. See The Case of the Seven Idiots from Haaretz.
It’s not that the “peace activists” were all nice people. Some of them weren’t. (Some of them were, which is also a problem.) It’s that by attacking ships not smuggling weapons in international water Israel ends up looking like a bunch of incompetent thugs.
Hell, watching the video and having personally conducted Vessel Board and Search (VBS) operations it two oceans, it was a Charlie Foxtrot from the get-go. You don’t fast-rope people down one at a time into a crowd! You go up from a small boat and pick a narrow, easily-defended spot.
But no matter how you do it, launching an offensive action on ships not carrying war material is not a “lynching.”
I like this part, where Gerrib demonstrates genre-blindness with regards to the Xanatos gambit, previous cries of, “heads i win, tails you lose,” in other threads notwithstanding. Very comical.
It isn’t blindness. It’s called team spirit.
CNN reporting the Turks will send another blockade run, this time with warships in the convoy.
In the baby boomer’s heyday (generational awakening era), “peace activist” stunts like this would mostly fizzle, but in a generational crisis era, these things lead to all-out war.
So, Chris, what you seem to be saying is they were incompetent even though their goal was to minimize the violence. You keeping bringing up the slingshots and avoiding the knives and pipes the “activists” were swinging with gusto. Again, if they were peaceful, why the weapons? Look who is escalating here. These useful idiots push the blockade and an, dare I say, anti-semitic press tells the world how bad the Israelis are. I say anti-semitic because the only jews they seem to like are the ones who bash their faith and Israel. The weapons were coming out regardless of where that ship was, your apples and oranges comparison on armed ships not withstanding.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
Attacking ships outside a declared exclusion zone is an act of war. Attacking those ships without due warning is a surprise attack. Sinking ships without warning that ships may be sunk is a surprise attack.
So many falsehoods in such a compact space….
1) The ships were not attacked. They were interdicted and boarded. Those are very different things.
2) There was a lawful blockade. It was established three years ago.
3) The ships were given prior warning, both while at sea (The ships’ captains were notified by radio before the boarding.) and before the ships even left port (In fact, Israel called the ambassadors of all five countries from which the ships originated to remind them of the blockade and inform them that Israel intended to enforce it.).
4) The ships were not sunk. Sheesh! Where did that come from?
The simple facts, Chris, are that the ships’ stated purpose was to run the blockade, and Israel had every authority under international law to interdict, board, and seize them. Whether the ships were Turkish or not is irrelevant. Whether they were in international waters or not is irrelevant. And whether they were armed or not is also irrelelvant.
And comparing a boarding party defending itself with paintball guns to the Pearl Harbor attack sets a new low, even for useful idiots.
Mike
Mike,
I think Gerrib reference to “sinking ships” was to Ken Anthony’s suggestion that Israel would have been within its rights to sink the ships. To that, I think Israel would have been overplaying their hand to have done so. However, as I understand the naval blockade, Ken is correct. Israel could have sunk the vessels for attempting to run the blockade.
You, Mike, do well in pointing out the fact that the blockade had been established for sometime. And that any suggestion of a “surprise” on the Israeli part takes willful ignorance. Indeed, it takes willful ignorance on the part of those pretending that Israel did not attempt diplomatic means to stop those ships from running a blockade established by Egypt and Israel. As you write, it doesn’t matter the diplomatic relations with Turkey as to whether those ships were violating the blockade. The stated intent of those ships was to violate the naval blockade, with such intent being the real “act of war”.
I do find it interesting that the UNSC was quick to condemn Israel for enforcing a blockade but has yet to find time to condemn North Korea for sinking a South Korean naval vessel. More people lost their life in the Korean incident. There was no warning of hostilities. There was even an investigation supported by the UN that determined that North Korea did indeed sink the South Korean vessel, yet still no condemnation.
An act of war?
A little perspective about the end game.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/05/useful-idiots-condemn-israel.html
Here’s another one.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/terror-finance-flotilla
My point here is this whole effort is kabuki for the press and, like Pavlov’s dog, they oblige. If the Israelis feel like the world is against them, they’re right.
Unfortunately for Israel, these terrorists were only transporting food and other non-military supplies. Unfortunately for Israel, food and non-military supplies are not on the list of contraband on Israel’s blockade.
Unfortunately for Michael Kent, boarding a ship in international waters without permission of the country of registry is by definition an attack. I’ve personally spent the better part of a day shadowing a ship while State got that permission from the country in question.
Unfortunately for Israel, their VBS (Vessel Board and Search) training and planning sucks. You do not fast-rope down one at a time into a crowd, nor is there any good reason to do so at night, and very good reasons to wait for daylight.
The “peace activists” are certainly not budding Ghandis. But Israel has played into their hands, and demonstrated that they will gladly use force to prevent food from reaching civilians.
We’re lucky that Turkey has not (yet) invoked Article 5 of NATO. We can’t veto a NATO resolution, unless we want to kill NATO.
Unfortunately for Israel, these terrorists were only transporting food and other non-military supplies.
Like night vision equipment and gas masks? And some of them are apparently known terrorists, loaded with thousands of dollars. It looks as if they were meant to stay behind in Gaza.
Unfortunately for Israel, food and non-military supplies are not on the list of contraband on Israel’s blockade.
No way to know for sure until you’ve inspected the ship. And Israel appears to have every right to do that in support of a properly announced blockade.
I’ve personally spent the better part of a day shadowing a ship while State got that permission from the country in question.
Were you enforcing a blockade?
But Israel has played into their hands, and demonstrated that they will gladly use force to prevent food from reaching civilians.
That doesn’t mean what they did was wrong, although it may have been stupid. Then again, this is not what they intended to happen. Not foreseeing it may itself have been a failure and I’m sure plenty of debate is going on inside the IDF and the Israeli government about the lessons to be learned.
They also happened to be transporting people. Forty of whom do not have any papers.
The fact that you personally have performed a more peaceful interception, doesn’t change their category from “declared blockade runner.” I’d like to hear how many ships you’ve intercepted where the nation-of-origin declared in advance they were going to run the blockade – and were also informed in advance of the intent-to-board.
The “Essential supplies” ended up being less than a quarter of the daily shipments from Israel into Palestine anyway. Knowing what’s on the ship is something you only know for sure after you’ve searched it yourself – and this one contained an ambush.
Martin – care to cite a source for your gas masks? Yes, Israel has a right to inspect a ship, inside its territorial waters or with the permission of the country of registry.
Was I enforcing a blockade? In the Red Sea, yes (against Saddam Hussein). In the Caribbean, no – I was chasing suspected drug-runners bound for the US.
The problem with Israel is that no matter what, they claim self-defense. As a self-proclaimed conservative said, Everything Israel does is always done in self-defense, no matter how excessive, disproportionate, unnecessary, wrong or aggressive it is. When everything becomes a matter of self-defense and the proper distinctions between actual legtimate self-defense and reckless excesses are erased, pretty soon most of the rest of the world won’t pay any attention to Israeli claims of self-defense even when they are legitimate.
Al – I spent 3 months on blockade duty enforcing UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein. Declared blockades have geographical limits. Ship enters the box, ship is violating the blockade. Declared port is not relevant.
Ship enters the box, ship is violating the blockade.
Then you you do agree. Excellent. Glad we got that one point cleared up. Finally.
Al – I’ve only been saying for the entire fraking thread that had Israel merely waited until the ships were in territorial water this would be an entirely different matter. What makes it a crisis is where the attack occurred. (The botched tactics just make Israel look stupid and brutal.)
And by the way, the IDF was attacked with kitchen and pocket knives!. (Photo source = Israeli Defense Forces blog)
Who knew having kitchen knives on a passenger ship constituted smuggling arms?
The same site here has the gas masks you were requesting a link for.
Al – so a handful of gas masks means the ship was “smuggling weapons?”
No, the “activists” definitely wanted a fight. But they were not smuggling anything that would be considered illegal.
LOL, you call those kitchen knives? Did you look in the second picture, or did you get that link from someone else and just assumed whatever they told you was true. Ignoring the four switchblades, what do you call that curled two-sided cutting knife with the T-handle in the second picture lower right?
Who knew having kitchen knives on a passenger ship constituted smuggling arms?
Do passenger ships normally carry firebombs, as reported in the link you provided, Gerrib? Did you read the link, or just look at the pictures?
Unfortunately, here’s a link, to the same source Gerrib provided, that includes additional photos of gasmasks on the M/V Mavi Marmara.
the “activists” definitely wanted a fight. But they were not smuggling anything that would be considered illegal.
Once again, the point flies right over Gerrib’s head.
But they were not smuggling anything that would be considered illegal.
The Israelis couldn’t have known that until after an inspection.
Chris Gerrib wrote:
Unfortunately for Israel, these terrorists were only transporting food and other non-military supplies.
It doesn’t matter what they were transporting. While smuggling contraband is one cause for interdiction, merely running the blockade is another.
From the NWIP 10-2 Law of Naval Warfare paragraph 632g (which, while a U. S. Naval document, is illustrative of the normal conventions of maritime law):
1. Attempted Breach of Blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or air take-off point with the intent of evading the blockade. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of visit bound to a neutral port or airfield, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area, or if the goods found in its cargo are to be trans-shipped through the blockaded area.
2. Capture. Vessels and aircraft are liable to capture for breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade (see subparagraph 503d2). The liability of a blockade runner to capture begins and terminates with her voyage or flight.
In case you’re wondering, paragraph 503d re-iterates:
d. NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT are in general liable to capture if performing any of the following acts:
1. Carrying contraband (see paragraph 631d).
2. Breaking or attempting to break, blockade (see paragraph 632g).
So by stating its intention to break the blockade, the “aid flotilla” was subject to capture from the moment it left port.
Unfortunately for Israel, food and non-military supplies are not on the list of contraband on Israel’s blockade.
That is correct. That is also why, once the ships reached the Israeli port of Ashdod and were inspected, the humanitarian cargo was offloaded and sent to Gaza via the Kerem Shalom border crossing.
The “peace activists” are certainly not budding Ghandis. But Israel has played into their hands, and demonstrated that they will gladly use force to prevent food from reaching civilians.
The food has already reached Gaza, so the Israelis did not prevent food from reaching civilians, either gladly or sadly. They did, however, demonstrate they will interdict ships running a blockade and will defend themselves if attacked (with paintballs, if possible, or bullets, if necessary).
Mike
Leland – I saw the scimitar. I didn’t see any firebombs or any fire in the videos. I do take your point – the “activists” wanted a fight. My points are:
1) The Israelis attacked. Complaining about losses while attacking is stupid.
2) The Israeli attack was conducted in international waters, on a ship from a country not at war with Israel. Therefore, any losses taken are the fault of Israel, not the defenders of the ship.
3) The ship was not in fact carrying any proscribed weapons. Claiming otherwise is simply false.
3a) The ship was thus not a military threat, and claiming otherwise is also false.
3b) Even by visual inspection, the ship was clearly not an immediate threat (no missiles on deck). Waiting until it entered territorial waters would have been perfectly safe for Israel.
4) The Israeli attack was tactically stupid and botched, something that any competent Navy officer could see.
5) Israel can’t claim protection under international law while violating the same law.
In general, busting into somebody’s house and killing him, his wife, his kids and his dog is not self-defense, even if the man of the house said he was going to kill you.
Driving a car towards my house while yelling “We aren’t stopping!” does, however present a different picture.
It strikes me that this incident may be Israel’s Lusitania.
Germany had declared an embargo, and was enforcing it.
Lusitania was carrting weapons to Btitan
lots of civilians onboat
It strikes me that this incident may be Israel’s Lusitania.
Well, it strikes us (as usual) that you are a barking moonbat. In order for that imbecilic analogy to work, it would have required that Israel sink the ship with all on board and no warning. I’m pretty sure that German commandos didn’t board the Lusitania with paint-ball guns after multiple warnings, but maybe that happened on Jack Lee’s planet.
Idiot.
Anyone else notice that Chris constantly mentions international waters, as if that invalidates the legitimacy of the boarding, while he pointedly ignores the quote from that Naval manual that states “1. Attempted Breach of Blockade occurs [b]from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port[/b] or air take-off point with the intent of evading the blockade.”
…it would have required that Israel sink the ship with all on board and no warning.
Yeah, ‘cos that would NEVER happen would it.
I mean nobody would do something that dumb AND shoot on the survivors – I mean, nobody would attack vessels from an ally – they’d have to be really stupid to do that wouldn’t they?
While I can believe you yahoos are defending this foul up, I still feel the urge to go and shower after reading it.
I just had to discuss a couple of statements by Chris:
Unfortunately for Michael Kent, boarding a ship in international waters without permission of the country of registry is by definition an attack.
Unless Turkey isn’t a signatory to the relevant sea treaties, they implicitly have given permission for Israel to board these vessels in order to enforce this blockade.
It’s that by attacking ships not smuggling weapons in international water
Let’s ignore here that we’ve already established that Israel didn’t “attack” these ships merely by boarding them. The point of these ships was to contest the blockage, right? You don’t succeed in such a thing by proving to your enemy that they were right. It would have been remarkable stupidity even by the standards of our time, if they had brought military hardware onboard. That comes later when the blockade has been compromised.
You can’t magically know when a ship carries military weapons or not. They don’t tell you these things.
Make it a long one.
Countries that have signed, but not yet ratified — (19) Afghanistan, Bhutan, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Libya, Liechtenstein, Malawi, Niger, Rwanda, Swaziland, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United States.
Countries that have not signed — (20) Andorra, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Eritrea, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Peru, San Marino, Syria, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela.
Non Voting Member State – Vatican City
Non State Observer – Palestine Liberation Organization
Non-Members and/or Non-Observers – Taiwan and Sahrawi Republic.
[5]
Make it a long one.
If necessary to spare us any more of your idiocy, please make it a long one with your nose against the nozzle.
Attacking ships outside a declared exclusion zone is an act of war.
Attacking ships anywhere is an act of war. Attempting to run a blockade is an act of war. Which happened first Chris?
Attacking those ships without due warning is a surprise attack.
Irrelevant for two reasons. The ships were not attacked. The ships were warned before boarding. Yes, boarders can be repelled. If they choose that action, as they did, they may suffer as a result, which they did.
Sinking ships without warning that ships may be sunk is a surprise attack.
I would definitely warn the ship before sinking it. But I would sink it and here’s why?
Clarity. Losing a ship would make the runners stop… or lose more ships. Either way works for me. Nobody on those ships is innocent.
Clarity. Good guys and bad guys. I hate the bad guys pretending to be the good guys. They aren’t. They can whine about it all they like.
Israel has the right to defend itself… even from the deceptive.
Beyond that, it doesn’t matter what the ship carried. It could be a boatload of marshmallows and hot chocolate. The only significant fact is they attempted to run a blockade. That’s it.
They can choose to do that and they can face the result.
As for Turkey being a NATO country. Let them invoke the charter. The result? More clarity. We are not going to attack Israel. If this president did, he wouldn’t be president for long.
In general, busting into somebody’s house and killing him, his wife, his kids and his dog is not self-defense, even if the man of the house said he was going to kill you.
But if that house was running a blockade it is and could be destroyed with all occupants. Try again.
The Israelis had no way of knowing what or who was on board those ships – which was the entire point of the blockade and requirement to dock at Ashod in the first place. As it turns out, the ships were quite loaded with (admittedly inadequately) armed terrorists as well as the “humanitarian aid”, but that is quite irrelevant.
It might be interesting to consider the possible consequences of a really disproportionate response to the blockade-running. Such as, for example, sinking all the ships at once – with a nuke.
Israel has the right to defend itself… even from the deceptive.
But unfortunately it seems to be harming itself. I maintain this was not about aid to Gaza or even blockade running to prepare for later weapons deliveries. It is about detaching Israel from its allies and Turkey from the West. So far it seems to be working.
Here’s an interesting link that discusses the legal aspects of the raid:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7142055.ece
Here’s an interesting link that discusses the legal aspects of the raid
Amazing that the article mentions nothing about the blockade of Gaza being imposed by both Israel and Egypt.
Hell, they were warned before leaving port. Regardless of exactly where they were pinched, the anti-semites and their useful idiots would be taking-up the same position. Really, there’s no point in getting too bogged down in the soap opera: the Israel “question” won’t be “answered” until WW3 is over.
Here’s a good blogpost on the raid. The writer even points out where Krauthammer doesn’t understand the situation and suggests the raid was a strategic blunder by Israel. However, there is a rationale argument of the legality of the situation which points out the fact that Egypt has been part of this blockade from the beginning, and how this is not about humanitarian aid.
I agree with the STRATFOR analysis, but it doesn’t go into the power struggle in Turkey and its relationship with the EU.
An islamic Turkey (as opposed to a secularist government of mainly muslim Turks) that is hostile to Israel cannot join the EU. Whether it does join will have enormous consequences for Turkey, the EU, the Middle East and thus for the whole world.
Turkey is a hub for hydrocarbon flows that come from areas that were formerly under Soviet domination. It has a powerful army and navy and it lies in an area of anormous strategic importance to the West. It could provide a contiguous territorial link to Armenia and Georgia (strategic states with strong cultural and religious links to Europe) and Azerbijan (a strategic state with strong links to Turkey). It could help counterbalance Russian influence in the area, which might be of special importance to Ukraine, another strategic Black Sea nation. There are also large Turkish minorities in many EU states.
Regardless of exactly where they were pinched, the anti-semites and their useful idiots would be taking-up the same position.
It’s good to remember that there is a difference between anti-semitism, anti-Israeli sentiment and anti-zionism, just as there are differences between nazism and fascism or socialism and communism.
I forgot to mention that Turkey also allows important hydrocarbon flows to bypass both the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea / Suez canal.
Yes, and in all those case it is only the degree to which you express your true feelings.
Hey, I’m just using the same standard the leftist troll here employs vis-à-vis “racism.” Sause for the goose…