Israel just doesn't get it...

[joshh]

Reportedly there is another "aid" ship heading for Gaza...go get em Israel!

[Ral]

just to clear it up again:

Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise

Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:

"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP May 27, 2010.)

The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.

It is a close question whether "civilians" who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.

Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers boarding the vessel, they lost their status as innocent civilians. Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife and pipe wielding assailants. Less there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the accompanying video and watch, as so-called peaceful "activists" repeatedly pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods (see http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk). Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force, especially when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel's rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger. Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self defense under comparable circumstances?

Notwithstanding the legality of Israel's actions, the international community has once again ganged up on Israel. In doing so, Israel's critics have failed to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense. None of these factors alone warrant condemnation, but the end result surely deserves scrutiny by Israeli policy makers. There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies on the one hand, and alleged violations of international law on the other hand. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law.

from [URL="http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/06/israel-actions-lawful-unwise.php"[/URL]

[Massive Lee]

Would you dare think that your source is not biased? It seems like the Sionist propaganda machine is hard at work.
Sure, any point-of-view is worth reading. Even those who support Apartheid ;-)

http://www.hudsonny.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=1&id=7

"In 1983, the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith presented him with the William O. Douglas First Amendment Award for his "compassionate eloquent leadership and persistent advocacy in the struggle for civil and human rights." In presenting the award, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel said: "If there had been a few people like Alan Dershowitz during the 1930s and 1940s, the history of European Jewry might have been different." He has been awarded the honorary doctor of laws degree by Yeshiva University, the Hebrew Union College, Monmouth College, and Haifa University."

[Atreus]

/THREAD

before lee had to barge in assaulting the bias of the article.

[Massive Lee]

Israeli Apartheid - from CBS News' 60 minutes

[E30Kaiser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LulDJh4fWI

Another video of the actual boarding. (I think i just youtube embed failed)

[Ral]

Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Israeli Actions Are Stupid, But Legal

nGW and information warfare go hand in hand, and that is exactly what we are seeing unfold with the situation regarding the sea based protesters and Israel this morning as the discussion moves away from law and into the realm of politics. The political fallout will prove interesting, only because we are likely to learn a lot about President Obama.

The news has already gone viral, and many pundits have weighed in - many of whom have formulated their response without the facts of what happened. It is not surprising to me that much of the early press reporting has suffered from inaccuracies - early reporting of activities at sea often gets it wrong - and this incident is no different.

Was the Boarding Legal?

Under international law, the consensus of the maritime attorney's I have spoken to is that the boarding operation by Israel was legal. The coast of Gaza has been under maritime blockade by Israel, a blockade that was well known - indeed running the maritime blockade for political purposes was the specific intent of the protesters. It is why the press had been reporting all week that the situation was likely leading towards a confrontation. Is anyone surprised that Israel had an established maritime blockade and enforced that maritime blockade? I'm certainly not, Israel made clear all week that the flotilla would not be allowed to pass.

The maritime blockade is a result of the war between Israel and Hamas. Ones political position on that ongoing war is completely irrelevant to the reality that the maritime blockade was established. Knowledge of the maritime blockade by the protesters is also not in debate, and neither is knowledge the flotilla intended to violate the blockade - they made this clear themselves in the press. Once the flotilla made it clear in the press they intended to run the maritime blockade, according to international law, and even US law, the flotilla was considered to be in breach by attempting to violate the blockade.

It was at that point the IDF had legal authority - under international maritime law governing maritime blockades during wartime - to board the vessels and prevent the vessels from running the blockade. Yes, this action may legally be taken in international waters if those waters are recognized as part of the area under the maritime blockade. It is important to note that the action took place within the zone that was publicly known to be part of the maritime blockade of Gaza, and part of that zone is in international waters.

Whether it was a good decision by Israel to board the vessels is a political question, not a legal question. The outcome of the incident should not surprise anyone part of the maritime security community, indeed it highlights the inherent dangers that exist in political protests by sea. Sea based protests may be civilian political activities, but running a maritime blockade is not a political activity that engages law enforcement, rather it is a political activity against a military force exercising and activity governed by the laws of war - in other words, the protesters attempting to run the blockade could legally be argued to describe an act of war against Israel.

The Maritime NGO

What the hell was Israel thinking? I can't be the only person asking this question today, and yet I imagine there are a number of people in professional Navies around the world who have serious concerns in observing the events as they happened.

Political protests at sea cannot be legitimately compared to any protest on land, particularly when one considers any political protest situation where violent activity is likely. I think the authors on this blog made clear this week that we expected violence, because none of us are naive enough to believe close quarters situations involving Israelis and Palestinians will in any way be peaceful.

There is not a lot of space on ships, even big ships. If you have ever been on a ship, you know hallways are narrow and even something as simple as deckchairs can add to clutter on deck. When maritime security is enforced on any ship, there is an expectation of close quarters interaction with passengers and crew of a ship. One simply cannot get around this.

Putting IDF soldiers and political activists together on the same ship is like putting protesters and riot police in your house - that is literally how close they will be to one another. It isn't like a street protest where police can prepare by giving full city blocks of space for movement and protest activities. During situations on land where protesters may engage law enforcement, the space also allows for time - something one does not get when all activities between protesters and enforcers are in close quarters - like on a ship.

What is the result? Well, once the decision was made by Israel to board the ship the question is how the IDF would board the vessel. Based on video it would appear the protesters had deployed effective techniques to prevent an over-the-side boarding. That led to Israel deciding upon the fast rope approach.

The video of the fast rope activity demonstrates the danger in that tactic. Indeed, the first IDF commando doesn't even make it to the ground before the close quarters situation - like one would find on any ship full of protesters - immediately leads to violence. It seems incredible to me that the IDF didn't see that coming. If we presume the Israeli Navy is competent, we can presume they knew this would happen. That suggests Israel knew the initial boarding would be met with violent resistance, but the political cost of allowing violation of the blockade was higher than the expected political fallout of a violent response.

One thing is clear - every Navy needs to give serious thought to how to address this situation, because fast roping onto the deck of a ship of protesters should always expect to be a forcible entry operation.

It will be interesting to see how the Obama administration reacts. The recently released National Security Strategy of the United States depends a great deal on the use of international institutions and international law as a mechanism for fostering global peace on the maritime domain. Israel can legitimately be accused of having politically tone deaf leadership that is making world class dumbass decisions - an argument I think there is plenty of evidence to support - but the actions taken are within their rights of enforcing a maritime blockade under international law.

The truly scary part is that under international laws governing maritime blockades, Israel could have outright sank the ship instead of board it as an alternative enforcement of the maritime blockade, and Israel still been within their rights under international law. Such an action could have led to war with Turkey, but even if the ship would have been sunk, Turkey would still be on the wrong end of international law in this situation. Turkey will likely find plenty of populist political support in NATO countries over these events, but if they attempt to escalate they may find that support is fleeting among their NATO allies.

No one in NATO is going to support Turkey with anything other than political rhetoric in this situation. Rhetoric is free, but if a financial cost to NATO nations supporting Turkey becomes necessary - international law regarding naval blockades will quickly become the new foundation of NATO countries, and Turkey would quickly find themselves on the wrong end of the shifting political winds. Turkey finds a political victory in the present condition, and needs to do nothing outside of political rhetoric to secure it. The likelihood of taking some meaningful action against Israel by Turkey is very low.

As far as I am concerned, any country that acts as politically stupid as Israel has in this situation deserves every political attack they get. Israel has some seriously tone deaf leadership right now who seems to look at every problem as a nail and every solution requiring a hammer.

---

Those wishing to add comment are reminded this is not a political blog. Our focus should be on the tactics of the incident and the legal issues surrounding maritime law. Most Americans probably don't realize everything Israel did was legal under US law, for example. Given the level of political support the protesters are getting from the international community - despite international law - suggests we have plenty to discuss regarding this event that has nothing to do with the Palestinian | Israeli conflict specifically.

from a maritime security blog that is staunchly non-political.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/israeli-actions-are-stupid-but-legal.html

[e30e]

They way I see after that video, I'm surprised shots weren't fired.

[briansjacobs]

from a maritime security blog that is staunchly non-political.

just wondering if someday we will qouted as "from a BMW forum that is staunchly non political"

[Massive Lee]

Hi Brian

Just curious. You mentionned you emigrated from Russia to Israel, probably as part of an Israeli program to populate Arab areas under a settlers program. What made you decide to not stay there?

What do you think of people who state that Azkenaze Jews who have just migrated to Israel have more rights to live there than Palestinian families who've been living there for hundreds of generations?

Are there two "international laws". One for Israel, one for the rest of the world?

[e30e]

Looks like people want to mess with the Jews some more: Round 2 Israel vs Ireland

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/06/04/20100604israel-blockade-gaza-activists-ON.html

[mrsleeve]

Ok

Blockade in international waters - check

Announced to the world - check

Neutral Ports near by, any ship allowed to pass to those ports - Check

Blockade is of a country or govt/controlling entity that is engaged in armed conflict with the blocking, country or govt. - Check (hamas is at war with Israel, Hamas is the ruling body of Palestine go figure)

These are the criteria for a lawful Blockade in international waters based on international maritime law. Israel has fulfilled all of them, they are fully justified in stopping anything they want from trying to break the LEGAL blockade.

This is all. You fuckers need to really do some reading and educate your selves, this shit is not hard to figure out

[e30e]

You fuckers need to really do some reading and educate your selves, this shit is not hard to figure out

America needs to do this

[briansjacobs]

Hi Brian

Just curious. You mentionned you emigrated from Russia to Israel, probably as part of an Israeli program to populate Arab areas under a settlers program. What made you decide to not stay there?

What do you think of people who state that Azkenaze Jews who have just migrated to Israel have more rights to live there than Palestinian families who've been living there for hundreds of generations?

Are there two "international laws". One for Israel, one for the rest of the world?

my family emmigrated to the US from Russia. Not Isreal, my point was that as Jews from Russia I am sure we have long lost cousins in Isreal.

I will answer the rest of the question though, If you read my postings in other threads I am advocate of human rights, not just in the US, but anywhere and everywhere. I think Isreal has a right to defend itself, I think the people of Palestine have a right to the basic human necessities such has clean water,food, medicine all received in a timely manner. There are women and children starving there. On the other side, Palestine elected Hamas, a terrorist orgainzation that is outspoken about wiping Isreal off the face off the map. I am not a fan of the way Isreal is presenting themselves these days with carpeting bombing areas, but I also recognize that the terrorist in the area are hiding behind civilians. So if you are a civilian and see a terrorist "freedom fighter" run, because Isreal will drop a bomb there and they dont care who gets hit!

And from the eminant domain perspective I have voiced that opinion in another thread as well and I am still not a fan.

[Massive Lee]

Hi Brian

If scientists could prove through DNA that only a very, very small percentage of the current jewish population in Israel indeed had common genetic ties with Israel's original Jewish population (which dispersed 26 centuries ago and created different interpretations of the faith). Would that be an argument big enough to destroy the belief that this land belongs exclusively to Jews? BTW Why should this land belong to a religious minority, while Christians and Muslims were the majority? Where were Jews during the Crusade?

I also wonder if one of the 12 Lost Tribes, the Lemba tribe - Cohen priests descendants, should now leave South Africa, Zimbwabe and Ethiopia and return to Israel as most likely they have more genetic ties than most Jews currently living in Israel?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6044429622502488087#