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.
There’s a typo in the link.
Did the boarding party have sniper support? It looks as if they might easily have lost some of their men. It’s easy to say this from the comfort of your own home, but it does look like a screw up.
The Rossett link is missing an h before the ttp.
Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for this stunt.
Had the IDF intercepted the ships in Israeli waters, there would be no problem. However, boarding merchant ships in international waters (80 miles off of the coast) is an act of war. (As you may recall, that type of conduct was what caused the US to declare war in 1812.) The crew of such vessels have every right of self-defense.
You may also note that Turkey, a NATO ally whose ships have been attacked and seized, has called for and been granted an emergency meeting of NATO.
Why on Earth did they do this in international waters? The whole purpose of the flotilla seems to have been to harm Israel’s image and to drive a wedge between Israel and Turkey and between Turkey and the EU/NATO. Israel stepped into a trap with its eyes wide open.
I wonder if Chris heard the “whoosh” as the point flew right over his head?
Also, I suspect that Israel will claim that Turkey was making war on Israel by aiding its enemies who have sworn to destroy it, and bombard it on a continual basis.
One word, though wordpress won’t allow just one word:
Perfidy
The point, Rand, is exactly what Martin said. Israel attacked merchant ships in international waters. That is an act of war. The ships had not entered territorial waters or a declared maritime exclusion zone. They had every right to be there.
What you note is the complete absence of firearms from the caches. The ships cannot be accused of smuggling military supplies, and were not “armed” ships by any stretch of international law.
Unless Israel decides that providing food to people is an act of war, they have no cause to declare war against Turkey. Turkey, on the other hand, has every right to do so. Had Israel merely waited until the ships entered territorial waters, this would be a non-issue. They didn’t, and it is.
Turkey should be kicked out of NATO for this stunt.
I’m sure that would be more than what the organisers of the flottilla could hope for. I think this is about whether Turkey is aligned with the West or with the Arab world. It is in our strategic interest to have Turkey aligned with the West.
No, the point is that these are not “peace” activists.
No, the point is that these are not “peace” activists.
And they’ve just won a major victory. This is bad news indeed.
Given the the typical American attitude towards “peace” activists, Hamas may have elected President Palin.
The point, Rand, is exactly what Martin said. Israel attacked merchant ships in international waters. That is an act of war.
They boarded merchant ships in international waters. That’s not the same as an “attack”. If Israel had attacked these ships, there would be more than 10 dead people. Also we need to remember that this flotilla was designed to threaten the security of Israel by opening up another avenue for arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip.
Also we need to remember that this flotilla was designed to threaten the security of Israel by opening up another avenue for arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip.
I think it’s more serious than that, driving a wedge between Israel and its allies and driving Turkey away from the West.
Israel should announce that, given the violence shown by these … activists, that any ships bound for Gaza without Israeli permission will be sunk, rather than boarded.
No arms have been found on the ships (slingshots don’t count), so arguing that this is an attempt to open a new arms conduit simply won’t fly. A boarding is an attack under international law. The ship is a part of the territory of the country it is registered in, so a boarding outside territorial waters is considered an invasion, just like seizing an embassy.
In general, the situation is as if a cop illegally broke into your house and you shot him. That’s not a “lynching” as the IDF described it – that’s self-defense. If the same cop breaks in with a search warrrant and you shoot him, it’s a crime.
If Israel wants to be accorded the rights of every other nation, they need to play by the same rules. Here they clearly are not.
Jeff Medcalf – actually, under international law that would be the better option. It’ s called a “maritime exclusion zone” and is perfectly legal. Forceably boarding ships in international water is illegal. What the IDF did is considered the same as what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor.
“What the IDF did is considered the same as what the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor”
Er, the Japanese didn’t just “forceably board ships” and the American vessels at Pearl Harbor were clearly in U.S. territory and not in International Waters so this was an attack on U.S. soil and not merely on U.S. ships in international waters. I’m in no mood to mess around with your pedantic nonsense, but I will not allow any ridiculous comparisons to Pearl Harbor particularly on Memorial Day.
The stated intention of the flotilla was to run a blockade imposed to stem arms coming in from Iran. It seems to me that a fleet sailing with the advertised intention of providing arms to an enemy it makes itself a valid target no matter where it is.
From a common sense point of view, a fleet that sails from a country with the intention of making war has no reasonable expectation to be confronted only in the national waters of the target nation. On the other hand, according to international/maritime law it may only be legal to confront such a force in national waters. I honestly don’t know what the law is.
You may say they said they were peace activists intending to deliver aid. Aid, incidentally, which could be delivered over land but subject to inspection. The problem is that people calling themselves “peace activists” have been making war on Israel for many years now.
Those who find it upsetting that Israel no longer regards the label “peace activist” meaningful need to look inside themselves for the reason the term has become meaningless.
That would involve genuine introspection (as opposed to a scolding directed at a political opponent) so I won’t hold my breath.
Hey Clueless Chris:
“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. “
No arms have been found on the ships (slingshots don’t count)
Here, arms mean weapons, that is devices that are intended to be used to harm humans. All the items discussed in the article were used as weapons and hence, are arms. Firearms and military-grade weapons weren’t discovered, but you wouldn’t put that sort of incriminating evidence on your first ships.
Hey Clueless Chris:
“8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade.
Won’t work Mike. Gerrib thinks this is a police raid, not a blockade.
Note that normal “anti-pirate” operations by the US, Britain, France, et al. are conducted in international waters.
Blockade running is either an Act of Piracy, or an Act of War.
Chris, Israel did declare a maritime exclusion zone around Gaza quite awhile back. Based on some admittedly quick search engining, it seems the Israelis extended the zone from 20 to 68 miles in anticipation of this “relief flotilla.” Whether the boardings were actually made in international waters seems to be, at best, questionable, as the sources for this assertion are the “peace activists” on the blockade runners – hardly disinterested parties.
How accurate these assertions can be assumed to be is problematical for another reason as well. These blockade runner sources are also pretty consistent in claiming that wireless communications access was interdicted before the boardings. If the IDF was employing military electronic countermeasures to jam voice communications during their op, they probably jammed GPS as well, though I have found no substantiation of this surmise in reports published thus far. So the precise location of the boarding ops is yet to be determined along with most of the other alleged “facts” surrounding this incident.
As has become SOP, of course, the western MSM are simply accepting all assertions from the “peace activists” at face value.
Rand: The \sum_i p_i \log \frac{1}{p_i} for Chris is reaching alarming low values.
where’s the leftist outrage about Iran capturing British boats in “international waters”?
“…Israel attacked merchant ships in international waters. That is an act of war.”
Chris, when, since 1947, has Israel NOT been at war with at least one of the neighboring countries? They didn’t start a war by doing this, they simply defended themselves. Again.
And as to the International Waters issue.
My older son has been in that area three times since the war began in Afghanistan. He’s about to go back again. ALL of the stops of ships, small boats and floating vessels of various size they’ve done, have been in International Waters.
In the Middle Eastern waters, either side of the Suez Canal, it’s done every day, by every Navy taking part in the War on Terror.
[if I can use such an outdated thought as that]
But here’s a question. Did you bark this loud when the North Koreans killed 40 South Koreans and sank a South Korea ship?
Hmmmm?
No arms have been found on the ships (slingshots don’t count)
Given the story of David and Goliath, I don’t thing the Israelis would buy that argument. In skilled hands those devices can be lethal.
Forceably boarding ships in international water is illegal.
We hold these truths to be self-evident [except to Chris Gerrib]… unalienable Rights, that among these are Life
Since the stated goal is to wipe out the existence of Israel and it’s people, I’d have to go with the second statement over the first. Plus the fact that according to international law this particular boarding was legal. They would have been within their legal rights to sink the ships without boarding and I suggest they do so next time. This is the risk blockade runners take.
I think that boarding the ships was a mistake, a bad one, and they were darn lucky it wasn’t far worse.
They needlessly exposed those commandos to risk. I have a deep-seated dislike of doing that to troops when the grounds are merely political. There are far safer ways to stop ships than boarding them, and the only reason those were not used is politics. The troops deserve better.
IMHO, a more traditionalist approach is called for; warn the ships off, via radio, and then with a shot across the bow. If that doesn’t work, start blasting them above the waterline for a few minutes. If they still keep coming, it’s time to change their direction of motion from horizontal to vertical with a nice, friendly torpedo or two. (hey, if peace activists can attack, torpedo warshots can be friendly, right?)
They needlessly exposed those commandos to risk.
Agreed.
I have a deep-seated dislike of doing that to troops when the grounds are merely political.
Running a blockade is not merely political.
David Bernstein has a photo of a knife-wielding peace activist.
http://volokh.com/2010/05/31/pro-palestinian-peace-activists/
“Note the rather large, sharp dagger, perfect for, oh, spreading hummus or something.”
Janet Reno would have handled the flotilla a lot differently 🙂
Ken Anthony said,
“Running a blockade is not merely political.”
Ken, I wasn’t clear in my wording. I know that running the blockade was not just political. What I meant was that sending the commandos aboard, poorly armed with atrociously restrictive ROE’s, was a political act in order to minimize damage to the other side, and also to minimize the political fallout. That’s what I was objecting to.
I think they should have refrained from boarding (and putting the commandos at risk) and used more traditional means (shot across the bow, and then direct fire if needed) to stop those ships. Sure, the Europeans and others would howl, but they’re howling anyway.
Chrissy is soiling himself; he has suddenly realized that the Israeli response to the blockade runners means that leftypiggism is no longer safe.
Indeed, a well-trained commando would know implicitly that just about any item can be a lethal weapon.
‘Clueless Chris.” Heh. If this were a Marvel Comic and he were part of the Marvel Bullpen, that could be his Marvel nickname, “Clueless Chris Gerrib.”
Actually Gerrib I have seen it posted elsewhere that once a vessel makes a declaration they will run a blockade (and these did) they are subject to interdiction anywhere along the route. Furthermore there may be some issues of the interdiction being within Israel’s economic exclusion zone thus strengthening the case for the interdiction where it happened.
Now instead of playing this with blinders on let’s look at what we really know instead of playing the terrorists games. The blockade was well known. The terrorist group coordinating the blockade runners knew this and publicly announced they would run the blockade with ‘peace protesters’ to provided ‘needed items’. Israel gave the ‘peace protesters’ the benefit of the doubt and interdicted with non-leathal primay weapons – they were then attacked and defended themselves.
If the items were not subject to blockade why not just ship them through Israel or Egypt?
I think you are playing up this territorial waters thing as a straw man. Ships are search and boarded all over the world – and when you include the fact of the blockade territorial waters doesn’t apply at all.
Excelsior! Just don’t dare compare Jack Lee and Stan Lee.
The IDF bombed the flotilla and sunk it to the bottom of the sea?
Wow…and on Memorial Day no less. There should be extra troll points for that.
CJ, good clarification.
a political act in order to minimize damage
Isn’t it weird how political acts often do just the opposite and yet people persist in doing them? You’d think people would learn not to listen to the whiners without wits.
I think you are playing up this territorial waters thing as a straw man.
Perhaps he is, but I think the real question is whether this was a smart thing to do. There may have been good reasons for stopping the ships in international waters, but it seems Israel could have avoided some problems by warning the ships to stay out of its territorial waters and only boarding them once inside.
And concerning illegality: do blockade runners have the right to resist boarding by a foreign navy that is on a pre-announced blockade? Or is that right reserved to legal combatants? Even if they were legally entitled to do so, it makes a mockery of claims they were peace activists.
In any event the whole operation went badly wrong for Israel, and very well for the “peace activists”, except for the ones who were killed obviously.
What definition of “peace activist” includes wielding knives and clubs? Our brainless media just ignores the obvious to promote their narrative…along with certain other useful idiots.
I find it ironic that this blog wants merchant ships off of Somalia armed to the teeth but considers slingshots on (NATO member) Turkish ships “running weapons.” You can’t have it both ways. (Although now you know why merchant ships don’t like to carry weapons – some damn idiot will find any weapon a “military threat.”)
The Israeli papers are reporting the intercept as being 80 miles out to sea, beyond any exclusion zone. 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.
Der Schtumpy – please read my remarks on this very blog about the PDRK (I think the ROK should and will conduct retaliatory strikes). Also please note that, at the moment, Israel is not at war with anybody, especially Turkey. In fact, Turkey and Israel have and are currently cooperating, with Israeli forces using Turkish training ranges.
What Israel did was the equivalent of the US Navy boarding Spanish ships carrying food bound for Cuba. It was stupid and wrong.
I find it ironic that this blog wants merchant ships off of Somalia armed to the teeth but considers slingshots on (NATO member) Turkish ships “running weapons.”
Merchant vessels have the right to resist pirates, but don’t always exercise that right and there is disagreement over whether that is a good idea or not.
From what I’ve read Israel had every right under international law to enforce an announced blockade, not just inside its territorial waters but even in international waters. I imagine that a warship or a merchant vessel with marines on board for protection has the right to try to run a blockade enforced by an enemy navy and even to resist boarding, but that’s not what we are talking about here. Turkey is at peace with Israel, it is even a nominal ally, and the ships were not Turkish naval vessels nor were there Turkish soldiers on board with official instructions to break the blockade.
Oh, and by the way, this Israeli Charlie Foxtrot was such a success that Egypt has opened the Gaza border for ‘an unlimited time’.
Israel put a round into its foot, and right now look to be lining up the other foot for a shot.
Martin – Turkey is at peace with Israel. That means that Israel has no right to board Turkish ships outside Israeli territorial waters or a declared exclusion zone. Period. Any resistance put up by the crew is self-defense, allowed under maritime law.
Actually, according to the US interpretation of maritime law, neutral vessels not carrying military supplies always have the right of trade with both parties to a war. It was why we went to war in 1812, and a major cause of WWI.
Attacking those ships without due warning is a surprise attack.
I guess all the previous discussion about an announced naval blockade came as a surprise to Gerrib. I guess the PC rule of not executing morons for inability to comprehend concepts like “naval blockade” is in play here. However, it seems the “peace activitists” are not as illiterate as Gerrib, and they understood there were running a naval blockade. So much for Gerrib’s moronic defense of terrorist funded groups.
Here’s a well balanced article from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10203333.stm
It looks as if the commandos did not begin their assault by using flashbangs and tear gas because they wanted to use minimal violence. The situation only deteriorated once some of the activists resisted them. They may or may not have been entitled to do so, both under international and Turkish law, and from their strategic point of view doing so was a smashing success. Conversely, Israel was certainly justified in using force, but bungled the operation and made an enormous strategic blunder.