Not up on current Law, but in the past Blockades could only legally be placed on independant counrties(didn't stop the U.S. from blockading the C.S.), does this blockade mean Palestine is a recognosed Country. Under a legal blockade ships bound for the blockaded Country can be siezed in Int. waters. During the Civil War it was established that cargo headed for the blockaded Country can be siezed even if actually bound for a neutral port in Mexico if the end point was the blockaded Country. In Somalia you have private individualls preying on passing vessels participating in ligitimate trade vs a Government imposed blockade. The question would be is the blockade legal. Legalities didn't stop Nigeria from blockading Biafra.
On the first video the crowd seems to stop when at least one of the soldiers seems to draw a sidearm, rubber-bullets seems to have been used first without effect.
A couple of reports I've seen says that the activists on the boat took at least one gun/pistol from an Israeli soldier (some reports says that they got two) and startet shooting at the Israelis, so if that is the case the that would certainly defend that the Israelis shot back with live ammunition.
It's quite possible that they've tried that as well even if we don't see it in the viodeclips, but in an operation like that it's also possible that they didn't expect heavy resistance when boarding the ship and because of that didn't use tear-gas etc. before boarding it.
)That's also the reason why I posted here, to comment on the technical aspects of that operation (without violating OPSEC of course).
A metal pole is actually considered a lethal weapon, and it certainly is deadly if you hit the right spot.
As I wrote in my post, I've read a couple of articles/reports that the activists took a handgun (or maybe two) from the Israelis and opened fire against them, so they probably didn't have those in the first place.
That's exactly the things franzmaximilian want's to keep out of this thread.
.........
As you can see here most/all of them are wearing life-jackets, and that's normally something you wouldn't wear all the time on a boat so I would guess that they put them on as protection preparing to attack the Israeli soldiers.
Edit: on this video you can see several activitst wearing gas-masks as well life-jackets for protection, so they seemed to be preparing for violent confrontations.......
On the first video the crowd seems to stop when at least one of the soldiers seems to draw a sidearm, rubber-bullets seems to have been used first without effect.
A couple of reports I've seen says that the activists on the boat took at least one gun/pistol from an Israeli soldier
...................
And tear-gas usually doesn't work very well when you fastrope down from a chopper (it's a tiny bit of wind below you then.
If they startet to use such things before boarding the ship it could also escalate a situation unnecessarily, and after the first soldiers where attacked it could be even more dangerous to use it.
That is certainly a possibility, BUT one thing that struck me was that I only saw men wearing them in the video clips, none of the women there had any life-jackets on (as far as I could see). That makes me believe that they put them on as protection preparing to attack the Israelis before they boarded the ship.
They probably didn't expect that the Israelis would use firearms, and padded life-jackets can actually be quote good protection against several types of non-lethal weapons (without commenting too much on that)
Shame, maybe... But **** happens in a situation like that, that's for sure so it's impossible to sit here and speculate on wether it was a poorly planned operation or not that made them loose their firearms or not.
Yes it's very stupid, but it's also quite possible. An untrained person high on adrenaline doesn't tend to think much about possible consequences of his actions.
On most handguns that really isn't very difficult to figure out in more then a couple of seconds. But hitting a target if your untrained on the other hand (as I commented on above) is a completely different matter.
Maybe, maybe not. That's impossible to say, but they weren't exactly friendly when the first Israelis fastroped down to the boat.
We do not know if they used other non-lethal weapons other then rubber bullets...
That we can agree on.
I suppose you are trying to say that the pistols were only replicas because they had no intention of using them. Clever,... NOT.
) the crew had every right to defend themselves and their ship. The Israelis should have realized this (and its hard to imagine the Israelis didn't consider this possibility) in their planning that the crew might be willing to defend their ship from an attack.