Israel (IDF) versus Gaza aid ships- updates

[SeanNewman]

The thing that always must be considered with Israel is that it is a perfect example of the average Canadian not having any idea of what it is like to live under any danger whatsoever.

Even in the World Wars, apart from the odd sub near Halifax or some dynamite over the Pacific, we have never been in genuine danger and that shows in the CBC comments of this Israel story.  The same people condemn England for bombing German cities because they don't know what it's like to have your own city bombed for several years and have tens of thousands of your fellow citizens killed.

Canadians seem so willing to condemn them for acts of violence, because in my opinion they could not be more naive to what it is like to live in fear that not only do people want you dead, but want your country dead, and your way of life dead.

This is not a rant of a tangent because it is specifically about today's Gaza story...go and read the CBC comments under the story.  Deep down that should make you feel good to be a soldier because we and our grandparents have done such a good job shielding those sheep.

 

[jollyjacktar]

It also is all about optics.  The use of force and what can appear to be minimal to one person can appear to be excessive to another.  And that is why I believe what  I have seen so far has been edited to some degree as each side tries to get it's message out.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

They just showed an interview on the news, with a guy from BC. He said he went with his friends aboard one of the other ships. He said the express purpose of their trip was to run the Israeli blockade. Not to deliver aid. To run the blockade.

 

[tomahawk6]

Try running an RCMP roadblock and see what happens. Its the same on the high seas.

If a neutral ship is intent on running a blockade after being warned to turn back, the fact that it’s on the high seas isn’t a defense

 

[Redeye]

It also is all about optics.  The use of force and what can appear to be minimal to one person can appear to be excessive to another.  And that is why I believe what  I have seen so far has been edited to some degree as each side tries to get it's message out.

I think the apt description of the whole thing, as far as optics goes, was that of the Guardian today - they referred to the whole mess as something of an own-goal for Israel.  The flotilla was there primarily I think to run the blockade, and they were, it seems, ready for a fight in some manner.  The Israeli reaction, on the surface at least, seems far too heavy-handed, however, I wasn't there, and I can't comment beyond what I can perceive from what I've seen so far.  No matter what happened the result was guaranteed to be ugly.

 

[The Bread Guy]

There IS an element of the IDF being sucked into a bit of nice propaganda for the other side, BUT this only works because a lot of the context is being lost in the "Israel is bad, aid ships are good" meme:

1)  Multiple ships boarded, with no problem, one ship boarded, "aid workers" whale away on troops coming off the fast rope.  Based on what the video shows, if that level of beating happened to a cop or a soldier in the street, I'm guessing lethal force would be within reason if nothing else was stopping it.

2)  The messaging is "oh, those poor aid workers bringing humanitarian assistance to the poor Gazans".  If the humanitarians really WERE humanitarian, and everyone (if CBC Radio is to be believed) was trained in non-violent resistance, this is comparable to the anti-globalization/capitalism protesters not being able to keep a grip on the violent few.  In this case, though, I don't see a lot of media yet asking the aid folks, "why the violent response when many were reportedly trained in non-violent resistance?"  What's the dividing line between "aid worker" and "activist"?

3)  All that said, it really was a bit of a no-win for Israel:  do nothing, and the stuff gets through; react within what you see as your rights against (what appear to be) a small group of hotheads/instigators/rabble rousers, and you get this.

 

[HItorMiss]

Those Commandos were well trained in use of force principals, If they had to defend themselves they were well within their right to do so.

If the other ships reported no issues then clearly they were not on some murder spree... Unlike what the pro Arab media will try and spin it. If your ship is being boarded and you have nothing to hide then you relent and do what you are told until the situation resolves itself kinda like when a Police office does it. Argue or fight the police and well we all know what happens.  Attack a soldier with a lead pipe stun grenades and fire bombs well As a soldier myself I would deem my life under threat and react accordingly.

All that being said I am not an Israeli Commando and I was not in their shoes but I agree with them defending themselves and that is how I see it from the video footage.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Speaking as a former LEO, you are allowed to use up to such force as necessary to protect yourself and do what you need to do.  However once you cross the line over beyond what is needed you get into excessive force.  And that, is a determination that is made by others after the fact not in the heat of moment.  As a LEO you will be held accountable for any excessive force you use and will have no protection under law.  This event will I fear be judged by the court of public opinion overall and the real truth may never be discovered when the dust settles.  Time will tell.

 

[bdave]

I understand the aspect of protecting yourself when someone shows opposition, but can someone explain why the commandos were in the right to board the ships at all?
My issue is not with the ships but with the fact that Israel behaves as though it owns Palestine and the waters surrounding Palestine.


I am not sure how believable this source is, since I cannot seem to find it on other websites, but the situation has apparently escalated:

Ankara warned that further supply vessels will be sent to Gaza, escorted by the Turkish Navy, a development with unpredictable consequences.

Also,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100531/wl_mideast_afp/israelconflictgazaworld

 

[GAP]

The Media, especially the Arab media, and those with an agenda against Israel are loving this. They poked Israel with 5 sticks and the Israeli's broke one....they aren't going to back down ever.

If the Turkish Navy wants to get involved, they'd best be prepared to lose some ships....Israel can't allow this to happen.

 

[vonGarvin]

I don't care who's right or wrong: I just hope that cooler heads prevail. 

 

[tomahawk6]

A couple of videos at the link.

http://www.mererhetoric.com/2010/05/31/video-new-close-ups-of-peaceful-gaza-flotilla-brutally-attacking-idf-commandos/

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I understand the aspect of protecting yourself when someone shows opposition, but can someone explain why the commandos were in the right to board the ships at all?
My issue is not with the ships but with the fact that Israel behaves as though it owns Palestine and the waters surrounding Palestine.


I am not sure how believable this source is, since I cannot seem to find it on other websites, but the situation has apparently escalated:
Also,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100531/wl_mideast_afp/israelconflictgazaworld

The IDF calls the area around GAZA an Area of Conflict and were warning mariners accordingly. bdave, I know you believe the Israelis are the big bad boogiemen, but lets use our heads. If you were is the Israeli's shoes would you really trust a convoy of ships bearing down not to be carrying something that will hurt your people. This "peace" convoy had fair warning, the chose to ignore it and suffered the consequences.

 

[The Bread Guy]

How would you react if you saw a commando boarding the ship you were on, fully armed and ready? At that point, I would think you'd have grounds for believing they are there to kick some ***. Would you try to defend yourself, or just let them take over?

This is akin to an intruder breaking into your peaceful, quiet house and once you fight back, you are reprimanded/sued for not complying.

Is there something I am missing or do not know?

This isn't someone breaking in unannounced.  Suppose you're part of a convoy with multiple vehicles, and the cops tell you to pull over.  Every vehicle except yours pulls over.  When the cops try to stop you, you ram the vehicle and injure or kill the cop.  That's what THIS looks like to me.

Now, as to whether the boarding was legal, the ISR Ministry of Foreign Affairs cites an interesting reference - again, highlights mine:

.... 7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area.  That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.

8. A state may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.

9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.

10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were  relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade ....

In a different vein, this interesting tidbit jumped out at me from an IDF account - highlights mine:

.... “I was among the last to descend, and I saw that the group was dispersed, everyone in his own corner surrounded by 3 or 4 men, I saw a soldier on the floor with two men beating him. I peeled them off of him and they came at me and began beating me with the clubs. That’s how I broke my arm. At that moment I had no weapon in my hands, like everyone else who descended on the cables empty-handed. My paintball gun was behind me.

“They came and attacked me, I brought them down to the floor, I took a few steps back, I took out my paintball gun, they came at me, and I shot at their legs. One of the clubs destroyed my paint gun and I moved on to my pistol which was the only thing to hold against them. At this point my arm no longer functioned.” ....

At about 1:02 into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LulDJh4fWI
you can see someone holding what looks like a paintball gun with a big "pop bottle" pellet receptacle above the weapon, pointing it to the left of the screen.

A paintball gun?

 

[HItorMiss]

Yeah Paintball gun crank up the airpressure and it really smarts, fill the balls with pepper spray or tear gas liquid and they can be an amazing non lethal deterrent to crowds.

 

[bdave]

The IDF calls the area around GAZA an Area of Conflict and were warning mariners accordingly. bdave, I know you believe the Israelis are the big bad boogiemen, but lets use our heads. If you were is the Israeli's shoes would you really trust a convoy of ships bearing down not to be carrying something that will hurt your people. This "peace" convoy had fair warning, the chose to ignore it and suffered the consequences.

I understand this, but it doesn't mean Israel is in the right.
All countries will act in their best interests. It doesn't necessarily mean that those acts are morally valid.

This isn't someone breaking in unannounced.  Suppose you're part of a convoy with multiple vehicles, and the cops tell you to pull over.  Every vehicle except yours pulls over.  When the cops try to stop you, you ram the vehicle and injure or kill the cop.  That's what THIS looks like to me.

Now, as to whether the boarding was legal, the ISR Ministry of Foreign Affairs cites an interesting reference

Doesn't the blockade have to be lawful?


If Israel doesn't own Palestine, and by proxy does not own Palestinian waters, then the Israeli blockade is illegal and, thus, Israel has no right to enforce such a blockade and board the flotilla.

Is this incorrect: Israel does not legally own the Palestinian waters?
If the answer is yes, then I retract all my statements.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Hello???? For all intensive purposes Israel and Palestine are belligerent states to one another. Don't get so hung up on if its lawful or not, after all Israel has fulfilled her obligations by announcing and enforcing a blockade.

Article 22(1), (3), of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 13 U.S. T., at 2318-2319, for example, states that a warship may only board a merchant ship if it has a "reasonable ground for suspecting" the merchant ship is involved in piracy, the slave trade, or traveling under false colors. If an inspection fails to support the suspicion, the merchant ship "shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained." Article 23 contains comparable provisions for the stopping of merchant ships by aircraft. Similarly, Article 1 of the Pan American Maritime Neutrality Convention, 47 Stat., at 1990, 1994, permits a warship to stop a merchant ship on the high seas to determine its cargo, and whether it has committed "any violation of blockade," but the warship may only use force if the merchant ship "fails to observe the instructions given it." Article 27 provides: "A belligerent shall indemnify the damage caused by its violation of the foregoing provisions. It shall likewise be responsible for the acts of persons who may belong to its armed forces."

 

[bdave]

Hello???? For all intensive purposes

Intents and purposes.

Don't get so hung up on if its lawful or not

Article 22(1), (3), of the Geneva Convention on the High Seas, 13 U.S. T., at 2318-2319, for example, states that a warship may only board a merchant ship if it has a "reasonable ground for suspecting" the merchant ship is involved in piracy, the slave trade, or traveling under false colors. If an inspection fails to support the suspicion, the merchant ship "shall be compensated for any loss or damage that may have been sustained." Article 23 contains comparable provisions for the stopping of merchant ships by aircraft. Similarly, Article 1 of the Pan American Maritime Neutrality Convention, 47 Stat., at 1990, 1994, permits a warship to stop a merchant ship on the high seas to determine its cargo, and whether it has committed "any violation of blockade," but the warship may only use force if the merchant ship "fails to observe the instructions given it." Article 27 provides: "A belligerent shall indemnify the damage caused by its violation of the foregoing provisions. It shall likewise be responsible for the acts of persons who may belong to its armed forces."

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply or what to make of this.
I will therefore bow out of this thread because there is clearly something I don't understand.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Intents and purposes.

You are correct, my backwoods caper slipped in there.

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to reply or what to make of this.
I will therefore bow out of this thread because there is clearly something I don't understand.

At least quote the entire phrase as the meat is after what you quoted.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Bdave I watched the videos from both sides. The IDF screwed up by allowing the fast rope to take place on what was clearly a crowd ready to ambush them on arrival. Once the first commando is down, the rest needed to get into it to save their comrade. The use of paintball guns is quite clear showing the IDF did not plan on imediate deadly force, those same Comandos then pulled out their pistols later in the video. Hard to say exactly what changed thier equasion. A full inquiry by someone the IDF can trust to be neautral would be their best move from a PR point now. Also express regret over the neccesity of boarding a Turkish ship flagged ship would be useful.

Borrowed from Tanknet
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

http://www.icrc.org/...125641f002d49ce

will give some light to legal aspect.

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b ) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c ) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.