"They used their gravity ray to drag the Israeli choppers into range…"

No. They used deliberate breach of a blockade, which they knew would result in the response they got.

I can't blame the activists nor the soldiers for defending themselves. Haaretz.com asks some interesting questions…

"Tactics. What prompted the decision to stop the flotilla by force – what course of action was presented to the politicians who made the decision and what analysis was made of the consequences of using live fire in any confrontation?

Were there any dissenting views, was there anyone how pointed to the inevitable damage to Israel from any operational failure? What steps were taken to forestall an escalation?

Alternatives. Was any effort made to stop the flotilla through diplomacy, or through negotiation and compromise with its organizers? Or did the government rush headlong into a confrontation, without any thought for the alternatives? Was there anyone who advocated letting the boats through to Gaza, rather than making them a test of Israel's sovereignty and might?"

-link

Wait, middle ground had been pitched: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeq…

[Israeli foreign ministry head] Gal suggested the organisers should voluntarily head to Ashdod to unload the supplies so Israel or humanitarian agencies can deliver them to Gaza overland.

"We are determined to break Israel's blockade and will not be intimidated," said Lane, one of 750 activists from around the world, including dozens of public officials from European and Arab countries, who organisers say are heading towards Gaza.

Never mind.

Anyway, the boarding party should have been prepared for armed resistance. Botched operation cost lives.

I think you're right, and the information in the article supports that reading.

You can't call them activists. If they intended to break the Gaza blockade, then they are combatants, not activists. By ignoring the Israeli warnings and then attacking the Israelis with metal poles and chairs, they are combatants. Secondly, they were not defending themselves, since the Israelis had no intention of attacking, their intention was to seize control of the vessel.

When you're running a blockade, you're subject to interception/interdiction in international waters, too — it's when you're in _neutral_ waters that you're safe. So they were safe in Turkish, Cypriot, Syrian, or Egyptian waters, say. (Or Egypt could be a co-belligerent here, as they're blockading Gaza too.)

And we know they were running the blockade because, well, they announced it. Quite loudly, and also in writing.

Wasn't piracy — not unless the whole blockade is illegal. If you hold to the position that the blockade _itself_ is illegal, _then_ Israel is in the wrong here.

Yes, the blockade is illegal.

Ben, I think that you are wrong about that. The blockade had not been breached.

Gideon Levy in Haaretz on May 30, about the lies Israel tells itself:

"…They want to maintain the ineffective, illegal and unethical siege on Gaza and not let the "peace flotilla" dock off the Gaza coast?…"
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza…

If the Turkish government really views the ships taken as prizes as having been taken illegally (viz., by Israeli ships conducting an illegal blockade), it may decide to send its own warships to break the blockade. (They were Turkish ships, no?)

Which would put NATO into one heck of an interesting position.

Wow. If it weren't for the whole "this could end in the destruction of the entire world" angle, I'd actually love to see that just because of how fascinating it would be.

That's just not true.

The Turkish ships were neutral merchant ships trying to run a naval blockade already in place. If it is an illegal blockade, then it was an act of piracy. If it is a legal blockade, then it was a legal stop which became a tragic incident that should have been avoided (but wasn't).

Don't know about the reports of the Turks sending warships to escort future aid ships — AP says they ruled it out.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM…

[PM Arinc] ruled out deploying Turkish warships in the Mediterranean.

If the Turks did send their navy to protect future convoys, presumably that would lift the blockade — it's hard to imagine Israel openly attacking NATO warships. (It's been a long time since the USS Liberty.)

Come now, not the _entire_ world — it'd probably be like 1967 or 1973. With the small additional possibility of a couple of Israeli, Iranian (you know they'd come in), or Turkish cities becoming smoking craters.

But yes, tens or hundreds of thousands of lives possibly lost — not good.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

Edited out the racist bits, did you?

True, the "brutal attacks on armed soldiers" bit doesn't make much sense, but in this context there is a point to be made I think.

If armed commandos board your vessel from helicopters (after repeated warnings that you risked such a thing by not turning your vessel around), and they try to control the crowd on deck using paintball guns and non lethal tactics, then you have two choices at that point. Surrender, or fight back. If you fight back though, I don't think it's unreasonable to presume that if you manage to do enough damage (and PARTICULARLY if you manage to disarm a couple of the commandos, throw one of them off the boat, and start firing at them with their own sidearms), then, eventually, those commandos are going to switch to live rounds. Those commandos may have been willing to take beatings and stabbings from the passengers, but once the passengers started firing bullets at them from their own sidearms, enough was no doubt enough.

I'd say there's plenty of blame to go around, but from my viewpoint, if the Israelis hadn't opened fire, there'd likely be just as many dead today, they'd just be of a different nationality.

Well, that's putting it quite starkly, but if armed men from a foreign state confront you, and you choose to respond by attacking them with sticks, stabbing them with knives, and wrestling their sidearms away from them so you can shoot at them, then yes; mostly likely, either they're going to die or you are. None of which really goes to the ethics or morality of the situation, simply the logic thereof. It may not seem fair, but when confronted with armed men from a foreign state you should surrender, and if you choose to fight instead, you need to be aware that the armed men might use the guns they brought to stop your attack.

If you respond to armed commandos dropping out of helicopters by attacking them with iron bars and knives, and trying to disarm them, then there are likely only two options at that point: 1) you're going to manage to disarm all of the commandos, or, 2) eventually, the commandos are going to start shooting at you (I suppose there could be 3 – the commandos retreat and their navy simply torpedos your ship from a safe distance, but lets assume that was a non-starter here).

Also, I don't know who gave the order ultimately, but yes, faced with their buddies being beaten with pipes, stabbed, THROWN OFF THE SIDE OF THE BOAT, and shot at with their own confiscated sidearms, eventually, even agents of a "democratic state which respects the rule of law" are going to return fire. Now one can EASILY make the argument that they never should have been their in the first place, but once they were on that boat, I'm not sure the commandos can (nor should) be criticized NEARLY to the extent that those who sent them there should, if at all.

If you're conducting a legal blockade, yep. (If you're conducting an illegal blockade, nope, but, as the saying goes, better to face the judgment of seven men than be carried out by six.)

Re cottage country — it's open season up there. Especially if it's hunting season.

That jet skier? Obviously a sea monster that was threatening your boat. Anti cap gains tax people who are against open-pit mineral extraction from the Levant? Probably hairy — looked like a bear. It was him or you, and you had to think quick. Depending on what juries are like up there, you can probably skate on door-to-door salesmen and political canvassers, too — argue necessity.

and when all the smoke drifts away, maybe also consider that maybe it isn't the best idea to just walk into your friends point with your hunting rifle in the first place?

it is interesting to contrast 'defensible' reactions. if one heard that in texas someone had disarmed an intruder and used said arms to shoot at the invader, one would, i suspect, barely raise an eyebrow. but in this case, disarming the intruder and and using the arms to shoot at the invader gets you 'understandably' killed. to be clear, i ain't a big gun fan so would prefer everyone just didn't crack them out in the first place. but i am also not a huge fan with armies illegally storming places that seemingly require it so little. it tends to gets things elevated to levels no one needs things to be elevated too. and here we are. why in gawd's name was it necessary to invade this boat at 430 in the morning?

Your analogy is absurd. The Israeli blockade is to prevent weapons and materials used to build weapons from entering Gaza. The people they are intending to deter are terrorists. Micmac lobster fisherman aren't terrorists. There are no Micmac suicide bombers or missile launchers. Hamas kills Israelis. Micmac kill lobsters.

If you equate lobsters with Israelis, then you might as well be a member of Hamas or Hezbollah yourself.

That's an excellent point. It does seem a poorly planned raid. They seem to have completely misread the level of resistance they'd face.

Now, in their defence, they could have decided that lobbing tear gas on to the deck prior to boarding was overkill. I don't suppose it's COMPLETELY naive that they presumed that the "peace activists" on board would be pretty stunned by the sight of armed commandos repelling on to their ship from helicopters, and that they viewed the likelihood of their armed commandos being immediately set upon by pipe, chair and knife wielding "peace activists" intent on stabbing, beating and disarming them, to be remote. There's also the possibility that they considered the possibility of the soldiers being attacked, but felt that the soldiers would be able to subdue any such attack using non-lethal force, and that it was better to risk the soldiers facing some sort of attack, than it was to lob tear gas on to the deck of a ship of people who hadn't attacked them (yet). It wouldn't be the first time the IDF has put Israeli soldiers into a more dangerous position than they needed to be, in order to avoid doing something that could look bad internationally (like preceding the boarding with tear gas and flashbangs), and it wouldn't be the first time that such a strategy went horribly wrong (those usually when that's the case it's a lot of dead IDF personnel that's the result).

LKO, we agree on more than we disagree i reckon, and your point that there are different points with which to consider culpability. I def, agree those who ordered the fiasco, and those who advised them, ought to be the focus of a discussion of culpability. and i can't blame soldiers for defending themselves (although i think we are getting such fragmented pieces of information that I am not sure i have any base upon which to judge the degree the soldiers's response were professional/measured/extra provocative/etc).

as fer the Texas thing, it wasn't meant to be perfectly analogous, but it is was meant to highlight how different cultural contexts shape the rest of the convo, including which practical realities even are worth discussing.

It could have been that. I took the lifeboat to be a bit further out, i.e. that he dropped between the ship and the lifeboat, but you're right, he could have landed in the lifeboat.

I do think that it shows that the commandos were trying to use non lethal force though. Israeli commandos who are cleared to fire just don't get taken down by civilians imho, even civilians yielding pipes, axes and knives. From what I've seen so far, I find it plausible that the commandos were trying pretty hard to use non-lethal force pretty much right up to the point that a couple of them had been wrestled to the ground, stabbed, and disarmed, at which point the others started taking fire from their comrades own side arms. My larger point being that to the extent there's blame to be apportioned to the Israelis, I'd put it on the brass, and not the guys who actually boarded the boat (not that they shouldn't be looked at too, but it's possible in my mind that they acted appropriately, though with tragic results, given the situation they were put in).

The film doesn't show anyone hitting the water or being the recipient of the intense bar swinging.

Well, on the water thing I totally concede. He could have landed in the lifeboat, or a deck below, or something else. I certainly can't say for certain that he was thrown over the side and INTO THE OCEAN, just that he was thrown over the side (though he could have ended up in the ocean too, it's not like there weren't plenty of Israeli naval vessels around that could have plucked him out of the water).

No one being the recipient of the intense bar swinging though really stretches credulity a bit, I think. Can you actually SEE the blows hitting the marines? No, the marines are on the ground at that point, and you can't see the ground because of the side of the ship (apologies to mariners for just calling the deck "the ground"). But what are you suggesting? That the passengers were wildly swinging pipes and sticks and axes at the marines and that every blow they attempted was MISSING? Or, that they were wildly beating SOMETHING ELSE on the deck of the ship completely coincidental to the Israeli raid? Sorry, but I saw people swinging bats and pipes vigorously, followed by commandos falling down, followed by more vigorous swinging directed towards the ground. I'm COMPLETELY convinced that the additional swings (after I couldn't see the marines anymore) were also aimed at the marines, and I don't need to see any more evidence for me to presume that some of those blows were hitting their targets.

Not to get all conspiracy-theoryish on you, but how do we even know whether the film is genuine footage of the event? Something seems really wrong about it . . . who would rappel into an angry crowd of people wanting to beat the bejeezus out of you? And doing so armed only with paintball guns?? If so then the IDF went at it with their B-team.

As you well know, Egypt and Israel have a long-standing treaty….and Mubarak, the dictator of Egypt is gravely ill.

Goods transported any other way never reach Gaza…hence the flotilla.

Agreed — mostly. I suspect that Israel is supplying the people of Gaza with the minimum necessary to live. So people aren't quite dying of starvation, but their lives are pretty bad nevertheless. (If people were actually starving, we'd be seeing concentration camp-type photos in the mainstream press.)

I know a blockade is clearly and absolutely illegal if it starves the population, that's all. My understanding is that this one doesn't.

On the merits of the blockade policy itself — I don't know. I'd probably lift it if I were making foreign policy decisions in Jerusalem — but then, I didn't have rockets fired at my civilians for years from Gaza.

***

In this particular case, it's not like the Israeli government didn't offer to transport the food and medical materials over land, supervised by the people in the flotilla.

Collective punishment is in all cases illegal. Israel maintains the blockade is for security purposes, to halt the flow of weapons to Hamas. Clearly, however, this isn’t the case. The blockade is punishing the people of Gaza for voting for Hamas. Israel is punishing them.

The embargo is also corrupt. As you cannot import items into Gaza which Israelis produce. For example, empty cans, which Gazans could use to can the tomatoes they grow as tomato paste, are illegal because Israeli farmers already sell tomato paste into Gaza.

Isreal has also offered to transport food aid before. This aid never seems to reach Gaza. Why should anyone trust Isreal since Isreal hasn't exactly been acting in good faith.

No it's not. We all wish it were but it is far from over.