Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis

[longriver]

aeli commandos rappelled down to an aid flotilla sailing to thwart a Gaza blockade on Monday, clashing with pro-Palestinian activists on the lead ship in a botched raid that left at least nine passengers dead.
Bloodied passengers sprawled on the deck and troops dived into the sea to save themselves during several hours of hand-to-hand fighting that injured dozens of activists and six soldiers. Hundreds of activists were towed from the international waters to Israeli detention centers and hospitals.

International condemnation was swift and harsh as scrambled to explain how what was meant to be a simple takeover of a civilian vessel went so badly awry.

Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis

 

[Shmack]

Hmmm.. what did they kill them for? Wasn't it enough just to arrest them?? Anyway, i've heared that attacking ships in international waters is called piracy.

 

[Shmack]

Oh, i got it, watch this:

Close-Up Footage of Mavi Marmara Passengers Attacking IDF Soldiers

 

[Moloch]

Well, that's the way you deal with people entering your ships in international waters...Oh and btw: watch 0:48. The guy with the metal rod at the right end of the circle. Looks like he's wearing combat gear to me. Who's attacking who, hm?

 

[senojekips]

The long and the short of it was summed up by Shmack.

Under the definitions of International Maritime Law this attack was at the very least, state sanctioned piracy,... at worst an act of war. The Israeli thugs certainly deserved far worse than they received. The fact that they were complying with illegal orders is no defence. (Nuremburg 1946)

Blaming people for defending themselves and their ship is patently stupid and about all that could be expected of a pariah state like Israel.

 

[Prapor]

To speak from some experience here (3 years in Russian Border Guard sea patrol, chasing down poachers, drug runners, and people smugglers in the Pacific), we never had to kill anyone. Well, there was that one unfortunate case, a Japanese illegal fisherman, couple yers back now. They tried to ram a Russian patrol boat after being told to stop, turn off thier engine, and prepare to be boarded. As a result, the guards fired warning shots, and one bullet hit the young man in the head... There was a bit of an uproar about that too. I mean, even in Russia they usually don't kill people over... fish, you know. But, the usual procedure over there is, if the ship does comply, stop, and shut off; board, detain the crew, and take control of the ship. If they run, fire, take out their engine, then repeat the previous steps. If they try to fight, or ram, again, fire at engine, then board, preference is - take alive, using hand to hand combat techniques. And we are good at that. In Crimea, back in 2006, seven Russian Paratroopers and Black Sea Fleet Marines got into a barroom brawl with about 30 other people, mostly local Crimean Tatars, many of whom were also armed with knives, chairs, you name it. The Russians had no weapons, the Paras were there on vacation; the Marines were on leave from their nearby base, left their arms there. They beat up the hooligans, stabbed one with his own knife, threw another out a window, and had them running, screaming for help, by the time the police got there.

Are Israeli commandos not trained as well as Russian special forces?I mean, if 7 of our guys can fight 30 people with chairs and knives and rebar and win, can't 15 of Israel's?

 

[KJ]

Are Israeli commandos not trained as well as Russian special forces?I mean, if 7 of our guys can fight 30 people with chairs and knives and rebar and win, can't 15 of Israel's?

They probably could, but not hanging from fastropes ya know..

BTW, HOW in the world do you hit someone in the head with a warningshot?
Hahaha.

//KJ.

 

[Wolf]

I don't see how attacking commandos from an enemy faction in the middle of the ocean would improve the situation, but maybe I'm just trying to be too cerebral.

 

[Westpac Wayfarer]

It seems to me that the Turk Blockade Runners fared better than the Somali Pirates that encountered the Russian Navy the other day. Has anyone pointed out yet that the Blockade is operated jointly by Israel and Egypt?

 

[Prapor]

It seems to me that the Turk Blockade Runners fared better than the Somali Pirates that encountered the Russian Navy the other day. Has anyone pointed out yet that the Blockade is operated jointly by Israel and Egypt?

Those were pirates. These are unarmed aid workers. There is a difference.

 

[Shmack]

It seems to me that the Turk Blockade Runners fared better than the Somali Pirates that encountered the Russian Navy the other day. Has anyone pointed out yet that the Blockade is operated jointly by Israel and Egypt?

I strongly believe the 'blockade runners' would have ended up in a pretty much worse way, if it was the runners who were storming Israeli warship, not vice versa.

 

[MikeP]

From a lot of media reports it looks like the Israelis boarded a few other ships in this flotilla without incident.

On this ship, instead of peaceably standing by, the activists attacked the troopers with pipes and knives.

They apparently disarmed a couple and hurt some of them and the troopers responded as per their ROE.

Bad deal all over, but deliberately provoked by the offensive actions of the protesters.
Intent on International incident.

Israelis are not known for sublety

 

[Wolf]

From a lot of media reports it looks like the Israelis boarded a few other ships in this flotilla without incident.

On this ship, instead of peaceably standing by, the activists attacked the troopers with pipes and knives.

They apparently disarmed a couple and hurt some of them and the troopers responded as per their ROE.

Bad deal all over, but deliberately provoked by the offensive actions of the protesters.
Intent on International incident.

Israelis are not known for sublety

That's the logic I would side with.

It might suck having your ship inspected by commandos, but beating them with objects is certainly going to make matters worse.

If the commandos made any major violations during their inspection, then, maybe I could understand doing what they did. That's not the case.

 

[senojekips]

If the commandos made any major violations during their inspection, then, maybe I could understand doing what they did. That's not the case.

That is exactlt the case, they did commit a major violation under International law. They boarded a foreign flagged vessel against the wishes of the captain on the high seas whilst armed with deadly force. Whilst doing this they killed a number of passengers who were within their legal rights to resist them.

Current legal opinion is that this is "An illegal act of war" a War Crime under the current International Maritime conventions, unless of course, war has been declared between the two countries involved,... it has not.

 

[Wolf]

That is exactlt the case, they did commit a major violation under International law. They boarded a foreign flagged vessel against the wishes of the captain on the high seas whilst armed with deadly force. Whilst doing this they killed a number of passengers who were within their legal rights to resist them.

Current legal opinion is that this is "An illegal act of war" a War Crime under the current International Maritime conventions, unless of course, war has been declared between the two countries involved,... it has not.

I was talking rather loosely.

I acknowledge that their initial boarding of the vessel may have been the first major violation. But I was under the impression that the deaths that occured resulted after the choice was made to resist to such a degree. It seems to me that the passengers escalated the situation. I'm not convinced it was the wisest thing to do. And that's what I was referring to.

This is coming from a purely logical standpoint; not a political one. I'm not as concerned of the political and legal implications as I am of the fact that the passengers didn't have to act as they did -- and that, maybe, those that died would still be around.

 

[senojekips]

I was talking rather loosely.

I acknowledge that their initial boarding of the vessel may have been the first major violation. But I was under the impression that the deaths that occured resulted after the choice was made to resist to such a degree. It seems to me that the passengers escalated the situation. I'm not convinced it was the wisest thing to do. And that's what I was referring to.

This is coming from a purely logical standpoint; not a political one. I'm not as concerned of the political and legal implications as I am of the fact that the passengers didn't have to act as they did -- and that, maybe, those that died would still be around.

It's nothing to do with politics whatsoever, this is International Law and my whole point is, that had the Israelis not broken that law, there could never have been an escalation. The passengers have an inalienable right to use such force as is necessary, and without excess, to prevent the attackers from gaining control. the fact that the pssengers did not prevent the attackers from taking over is proof that they did not use excessive force.

It's like an armed robber who breaks into your house and shoots you because you defended your home. The fact that you resisted, in no way excuses the robber if he kills you to defend himself from harm.

 

[MontyB]

I have a question...
What happens to all these ships since they were all taken in International waters and the passengers and I assume crews have been deported and at that stage they were not committing any crimes and all but one of them entered Israel at Israels insistence so there is very little justification for keeping them.

 

[Wolf]

It's nothing to do with politics whatsoever, this is International Law and my whole point is, that had the Israelis not broken that law, there could never have been an escalation. The passengers have an inalienable right to use such force as is necessary, and without excess, to prevent the attackers from gaining control. the fact that the pssengers did not prevent the attackers from taking over is proof that they did not use excessive force.

It's like an armed robber who breaks into your house and shoots you because you defended your home. The fact that you resisted, in no way excuses the robber if he kills you to defend himself from harm.

I agree, there's no excuse for what you described in your example. However, common sense should bring forth the realization that if you confront said burglar, he may kill you. Of course, this is assuming you could choose whether or not to confront him: That factor could change the exact nature of the crime altogether. In this case, the passengers could make a decision. The Israelis made it quite obvious they were boarding the ship. And that's basically where the parallel to a break-in murder situation ends. Where a burglar is more likely committed to subterfuge, the commandos took on a higher profile; Where a burglar would want to hide his identity and objective, the Israelis indicated what they wanted to do. The passengers were presented with the option to comply, which most likely would not have ended in people dying. It all sounds absurd, and I'm not trying to excuse the Israelis for any laws they may have broken. I'm simply criticizing what seems to me like a lapse of judgement by the passengers -- the ones who died being the ones who had to pay the price.

 

[Bror Jace]

It should also be pointed out that the reason for the "aid workers" trying to break the Egypt-Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip is that Hamas, which governs the Palestinian-held strip, wants to import heavy weapons (primarily from Iran) ... especially rockets which they regularly launch into Israel.

All legitimate (non-weapon) aid to the Palestinians may pass through designated checkpoints with minimal delay.

If this is happening in international waters where Israel has no right to board the ships ... maybe they should just declare war on Hamas?

 

[senojekips]

I agree, there's no excuse for what you described in your example. However, common sense should bring forth the realization that if you confront said burglar, he may kill you. Of course, this is assuming you could choose whether or not to confront him: That factor could change the exact nature of the crime altogether. In this case, the passengers could make a decision. The Israelis made it quite obvious they were boarding the ship. And that's basically where the parallel to a break-in murder situation ends. Where a burglar is more likely committed to subterfuge, the commandos took on a higher profile; Where a burglar would want to hide his identity and objective, the Israelis indicated what they wanted to do. The passengers were presented with the option to comply, which most likely would not have ended in people dying. It all sounds absurd, and I'm not trying to excuse the Israelis for any laws they may have broken. I'm simply criticizing what seems to me like a lapse of judgement by the passengers -- the ones who died being the ones who had to pay the price.

Yes, you are quite correct, it is a very risky method to bring attention to any cause, but I guess that it has come to this, because otherwise no one seems to notice.

The world community has become inured to the Plight of the Palestinian people. we are just so used to the normal run of expropriation, harassment, beatings imprisonments and murder that we no longer take any notice, so some other nations have decided to demonstrate that the Palestinians are not alone, and that someone is aware of what is going on, and willing to risk life and limb to keep it in the public eye.