Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[Serafina]

Wait, what?
So a meeting was already scheduled, but he turns it down because...he doesn't want to talk about it, i guess.

That's understandable. Serious stuff is going on in Israel, he belongs back there as soon as possible.

Well, one might think that - but a personal meeting right now might just be the edge Isreal would need to weasel out of this.
Hence my interpretation is that they do not except that to be possible and they will just try their usual tactic of just ignoring everyone else.

[Siege]

The last time Netanyahu met with Obama during a time of crisis, Obama essentially blew him off. Perhaps his reasoning is that he stands to lose more by risking a repeat of that incident than there is to gain.

[Serafina]

The last time Netanyahu met with Obama during a time of crisis, Obama essentially blew him off. Perhaps his reasoning is that he stands to lose more by risking a repeat of that incident than there is to gain.

Well, that's what i said - he doesn't except talking to be any good, so he doesn't even try.
It seems like Isreal really enjoys it's pariah role.

[ShadowDragon8685]

The last time Netanyahu met with Obama during a time of crisis, Obama essentially blew him off. Perhaps his reasoning is that he stands to lose more by risking a repeat of that incident than there is to gain.

Well, that's what i said - he doesn't except talking to be any good, so he doesn't even try.
It seems like Isreal really enjoys it's pariah role.

Why is that, do you think? Perhaps it's the only role they know how to play - can be cast into?

Or are they just happy with it?

[Beowulf]

However, unless my knowledge about international laws back from school is wrong (or i recall it wrong), blockades can only legally be institute against states.
Since Isreal does not recognize Palestina as a state (or does it?), it can not blockade it legally.

Now, they could have intercepted the convoy legally in their own waters under these conditions, but if it is not a blockade they have no legal right to do so outside of their waters (without declaring war on the respective nations to whom the convoy belongs).

That is, if i recall this correctly - but then again, i doubt legalese will matter that much here.

If your definition was correct, then the US government could not have legally blockaded the Confederate states. It's interesting to note that the blockade against the Gaza strip is not being solely enforced by Israeli troops, but also by Egypt.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Well, that's what i said - he doesn't except talking to be any good, so he doesn't even try.
It seems like Isreal really enjoys it's pariah role.

That was my conclusion as to why Europe does little or nothing about the whole Israel/Palestine mess. To hear the Israeli government talk, anyone would think that all Europeans are genetically programmed to be anti-semitic. European governments in turn do nothing because nothing they can do to Israel will make it change its behaviour. There isn't that much trade after all.

I've looked up on the Turkish armed forces, and I'm rather impressed. They look like they could actually take Israel on and win, assuming the situation deteriorates that far.

[Oskuro]

Tiny update: The Israeli ambassador in Spain has claimed that the soldiers were "Brutally attacked" and that they "Acted on self defense".

Did the Israeli suffer any casualties? Because a claim of "self defense" sounds really wacky. I would buy them claiming that the civilians resisted inspection and a firefight broke out, but "we were brutally attacked and had to defend ourselves" is a bit much.

Here's a link to the article (in spanish), it is an audio file, though.

[Omega18]

Tiny update: The Israeli ambassador in Spain has claimed that the soldiers were "Brutally attacked" and that they "Acted on self defense".

Did the Israeli suffer any casualties? Because a claim of "self defense" sounds really wacky. I would buy them claiming that the civilians resisted inspection and a firefight broke out, but "we were brutally attacked and had to defend ourselves" is a bit much.

The Isreali commandos had 7 troops wounded according to the reports, with two seriously wounded, so the self defense claims appear quite definitive unless the Israelis fired at individuals on board the ships prior to being attacked.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.293089

According to the IDF the ship where the violence occurred also had two individuals armed with pistols.

The idea the IDF could have sustained the casualties entirely after they started firing with live ammo actually strikes me as highly implausible, so the self defense claims appear to be supported.

Israel also appears to have a rather clear legal justification for intercepting the ships where they did.

The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea says in paragraph 67:

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture.

My understanding is there is no specification that the boarding can't occur in international waters. The US and other countries have boarded ships under various circumstances of this sort when enforcing a blockade apparently without legal issues in the past. (I.E. while it didn't actually happen in that case, that North Korean ships suspected of carrying contraband a while ago.)

Since at least at the stage in question the Israeli troops were boarding the ships to search for contraband, they actually had legal grounds for boarding if the Gaza blockade is legal and actually were legally in the right to open fire as well as long as the crew on board the ships were actively resisting. The self defense claim actually appears to be extremely clear for the individual IDF troops under such circumstances. (Even if there are legal problems with the blockade, the individual IDF troops had reasonable grounds for believing their actions were legally valid.)

[The Grim Squeaker]

This is the only article I could find in English that was relevant:

Israel Navy commandos: Gaza flotilla activists tried to lynch us
Nine activists on board Gaza-bound flotilla killed in violent clashes when Israel Navy commandos boarded ships; 7 commandos hurt, 2 seriously.

By Amos Harel, Avi Issacharoff, Anshel Pfeffer and News Agencies

Story Highlights

Confrontation took place in international waters
Israel says six-ship flotilla ignored orders to turn back from course to Gaza
IDF: Activists on board attacked lone commando with iron bars, opened fire
Activists on board a six-ship flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip tried to lynch the Israel Navy commandos who boarded their Turkish-flagged boat early Monday, Israel Defense Forces sources told Haaretz on Monday afternoon. At least nine people were killed and several more were wounded in the fighting that erupted aboard one of the ships.


The IDF confirmed that at least seven Navy commandos had been wounded, two of them seriously, in a fight which apparently broke out after activists tried to seize their weapons.

The commandos, who intercepted the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara after it ignored orders to turn back from its course to Gaza, said they had encountered violent resistance from activists armed with sticks and knives. According to the commandos, the activists threw one of the soldiers from the upper deck to the lower after they boarded. The organizers of the flotilla said the troops opened fire first.

An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons.

"They had pistols with live ammunition as back-up, to defend themselves," he said. The IDF said it had confiscated two pistols from the boat.

One of the commandos told reporters he descended by rope from a helicopter onto one of the six ships in the convoy and was immediately attacked by a group of people waiting for them.

"They beat us with metal sticks and knives," he said. "There was live fire at some point against us."

A Reuters cameraman on the Israel Navy ship Kidon, sailing close to the convoy, said IDF commanders monitoring the operation were surprised by the strong resistance put up by the pro-Palestinian activists.

One of the commandos said some of the soldiers were stripped of their helmets and equipment and a several were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck, forcing them to jump into the sea to escape.

"They jumped me, hit me with clubs and bottles and stole my rifle," one of the commandos said. "I pulled out my pistol and had no choice but to shoot."


A left-wing activist on board the Gaza flotilla holding a knife after Israel Navy commandos boarded their ship on May 31, 2010.

The soldiers said they were forced to open fire after the activists struck one of their comrades in the head and trampled on him. A senior IDF field commander ordered the soldiers then to respond with fire, a decision which the commandos said received full backing the military echelon.

The IDF said its rules of engagement allowed troops to open fire in what it called a "life-threatening situation".

"Navy fighters took control of six ships that tried to violate the naval blockade [of the Gaza Strip]," said a statement from the IDF. "During the takeover, the soldiers encountered serious physical violence by the protesters, who attacked them with live fire."

Elite troops from Shayetet 13, a naval commando unit, boarded the protest boats at around 4:00 A.M. Al Jazeera reported Monday morning that the Gaza aid flotilla had changed course to avoid a confrontation with Israeli warships.

Some 700 pro-Palestinian activists were on the boats, including 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mairead Corrigan Maguire of Northern Ireland, European legislators. The boats were carrying 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid and supplies to Gaza.


The Israel Navy had been operating under the assumption that the activists manning the boats would not heed their calls to turn around, and Israeli troops had been prepared to board the ships to steer them away from the Gaza shores toward the Israeli port city of Ashdod.

Huwaida Arraf, one of the flotilla organizers, said the conv9oy began the journey from international waters off the coast of Cyprus on Sunday afternoon, after two days of delays. According to organizers, the flotilla had been expected to reach Gaza, about 400 kilometers away, on Monday afternoon, and two more ships had been expected to follow in a second wave.

[Psychic_Sandwich]

I've looked up on the Turkish armed forces, and I'm rather impressed. They look like they could actually take Israel on and win, assuming the situation deteriorates that far.

To win a war against Israel, you don't need to actually defeat them militarily. All you need to do is force them to keep a fully mobilised army in the field, and their economy will collapse out from underneath them; they don't have enough space, people or strategic depth to keep themselves fully mobilised, which is one of the reasons that they've had to make damn sure that they win their wars quickly. You could lose every battle and still win the war so long as you can keep your army in the field as a credible threat.

Turkey is much more powerful than the Arab states, and is competent enough that it won't simply collapse when the IDF pokes it lightly. If it comes to open war, and if Syria and Lebanon let Turkey move through their territory, then Israel is completely screwed. It's rather unlikely that things will go that far, IMO.

Also, I love how the 'weaponry' seized in that video is slingshots and metal poles that appear to have been taken from railings or something similar. Yes, Israel couldn't allow this ship to reach Gaza, lest it arm the Palestinians with the unstoppable power of weaponry that was old in the stone age.

[Omega18]

Also, I love how the 'weaponry' seized in that video is slingshots and metal poles that appear to have been taken from railings or something similar. Yes, Israel couldn't allow this ship to reach Gaza, lest it arm the Palestinians with the unstoppable power of weaponry that was old in the stone age.

While not surprising that it turned out to be that way in this case, Israel can legitimately point out they couldn't prove things one way or the other until they actually inspected the ship's cargo.

If they consistently let humanitarian aid go by without it being inspected by Israel or Egypt or other creditable third party inspectors, the next load could actually be loaded up with rocket artillery and the like.

[Broomstick]

The last time Netanyahu met with Obama during a time of crisis, Obama essentially blew him off. Perhaps his reasoning is that he stands to lose more by risking a repeat of that incident than there is to gain.

Well, that's what i said - he doesn't except talking to be any good, so he doesn't even try.
It seems like Isreal really enjoys it's pariah role.

Why is that, do you think? Perhaps it's the only role they know how to play - can be cast into?

Or are they just happy with it?

The Jews have been pariahs in much of the world for the past 2,000 years, and in one part of the world or another for longer than that. They're used to that role, and it wouldn't surprise me if some are no longer able to play any other role. They've become comfortable in their misery.

Of course, again, I do not think ALL Israelis are like that, just that there is probably a slice of them with that viewpoint.

[fractalsponge1]

Saw this recently, but I can't read the captioning.

http://www.youtube.com/v/buzOWKxN2co

It'll probably be some time before there's a clear idea of what happened on the ships. That said, as it stands, the incident definitely seems to have "diplomatic and PR clusterfuck" written all over it for Israel.

[Thanas]

It'll be interesting to see the US government's reaction to this crisis; their reaction to the last one (the announcement of the expansion of Israeli settlements in east Jerusalem during Netanyahu's visit to Washington D.C.) was decidedly not pro-Israel in the least, so there's hope for stern words from Obama yet. In the end though I predict the USA will squirm a little but do or say little of any actual consequence. Stern words from the EU (lead by Germany and France) are pretty much guaranteed; the EU needs good relations with Turkey far more than it needs them with Israel. The Turks meanwhile are really pissed off and have vowed that relations with Israel "may not recover". That's pretty much the diplomatic lingo equivalent of punching someone in the nose; I imagine their trade and diplomatic relations with Israel will take a nosedive toward the sub-zero in the near future. So might European trade, in point of fact, unless the Israelis pull off some really convincing excuses (which I doubt--admitting wrongdoing, let alone apologizing profusely, is not exactly their strong suit).

This is also only the latest in a string of Israelis insults against Turkey, remember the "we make the Turkish ambassador sit in a lower chair, have a smaller flag and then proceed to berate him on live TV for an hour?"

In the days of old, this would have been cause for war.

[CBG]

A have found a very detailed desription from the israeli navy's perspective.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 85,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 96,00.html
There are 4 injured soldiers:
-1 beaten and thrown 30 feet down
-2 shot
-1 stabbed
It seems to be well planned PR stunt\provocation.
Looks like since the elections Turkey keeps moving into the islamic political camp.

[wautd]

Appearantly the boats have just arrived in Israel. People on board can either decide to go back home or go to an Israeli prison (I wonder on what charge).

Wait, what?
So a meeting was already scheduled, but he turns it down because...he doesn't want to talk about it, i guess.

I think Obama is grateful for that as well. Not a good political move to stand beside him on TV right now.

A have found a very detailed desription from the israeli navy's perspective.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 85,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 96,00.html
There are 4 injured soldiers:
-1 beaten and thrown 30 feet down
-2 shot
-1 stabbed
It seems to be well planned PR stunt\provocation.
Looks like since the elections Turkey keeps moving into the islamic political camp.

I guess we'll never know for sure which side started first. Between the 600 people, there probably would have been some extremists. The sad part is that the majority are probably people who want to help. The current blockade is inhumane whichever way you look at it.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

To win a war against Israel, you don't need to actually defeat them militarily. All you need to do is force them to keep a fully mobilised army in the field, and their economy will collapse out from underneath them; they don't have enough space, people or strategic depth to keep themselves fully mobilised, which is one of the reasons that they've had to make damn sure that they win their wars quickly. You could lose every battle and still win the war so long as you can keep your army in the field as a credible threat.

Turkey is much more powerful than the Arab states, and is competent enough that it won't simply collapse when the IDF pokes it lightly. If it comes to open war, and if Syria and Lebanon let Turkey move through their territory, then Israel is completely screwed. It's rather unlikely that things will go that far, IMO.

Agreed on all points. An actual land invasion of Israel by Turkey is unthinkable, if for no other reason than the sheer expense involved for little real gain. They could of course move troops into Lebanon or Syria (with permission of aforesaid governments) to scare Israel as you describe, but that too would be expensive and diplomatically tricky.

If there is a clash, it will most likely be a naval and air clash which, unless I'm very much mistaken, would not result in an Israeli mass-mobilization. There are various contexts in which this could happen, but the mechanics stand in any case. The Israeli fleet has little or no hope of victory against the Turkish fleet, and would probably not come out at all. Israeli air attacks would be largely ineffective, as the Turkish warships are fully equipped to defend themselves against such attacks. In turn, the Turkish air force can provide CAP from bases on Northern Cyprus, with the possibility of air strikes into Israel itself.

Regarding contexts, there are three that I can think of. One is that Turkey deploys its fleet as a show of strength, in which case Israel would probably sit back and let them (then again, they might get antsy). A second is that they deploy warships to Gaza, breaking the blockade. This approach has the advantage of gaining Turkey some serious prestige, while a violent response by Israel is unlikely. A third is to blockade Israel itself, which would be pushing the bounds of proportionality and almost certainly result in violence.

This is all conjecture, of course. Really, I'm wondering what Obama will end up offering Turkey to drop the matter.

[CBG]

2 videos showing the first commandos landing and following actions, first one side view, second one top view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE
Seems that in order to be a peace activist these days, you don't have to be, you know, peaceful

[Omega18]

If there is a clash, it will most likely be a naval and air clash which, unless I'm very much mistaken, would not result in an Israeli mass-mobilization. There are various contexts in which this could happen, but the mechanics stand in any case. The Israeli fleet has little or no hope of victory against the Turkish fleet, and would probably not come out at all. Israeli air attacks would be largely ineffective, as the Turkish warships are fully equipped to defend themselves against such attacks. In turn, the Turkish air force can provide CAP from bases on Northern Cyprus, with the possibility of air strikes into Israel itself.

This is a wildly mistaken assessment of the military situation as given.

Israel has 368 F-15 and F-16s, all with can be armed with multiple either Harpoon or Gabriel III Anti-ship missiles. The most capable Turkish ships in the surface Turkish Navy in this situation are the Oliver Hazard Perry frigates upgraded to the G class standard. While with improved air defense, they are still armed with merely SM-1 Missiles with some ESSM Missiles for close in work. Only a portion of the 8 ships have been entirely upgraded to this standard, which certainly doesn't give them anything like Aegis type air defense capabilities. Turkey also have a bunch of Meko Class frigates with ESSM missiles, but overall still not that impressive air defense capacities, and 3 Knox frigates with limited air defense capabilities. Their missile boats and fast attack craft will be even less capable in this area. The IAF can rather easily launch anti-ship missile saturation attacks to sink all of the Turkish surface fleet in the area if they choose to do so.

Turkey's Air Force is also clearly outclassed by Israel's overall. While Turkey may have 410 fighter and attack aircraft to Israel's around 368 active ones, Turkey only has about 210 of those be F-16s, while the rest are F-5 and F-4s. All of the Israeli aircraft have helmet mounted sights and can be armed with among other things the highly capable Python 5 air to air missile, while a substantial portion of the Turkish F-16s are less heavily upgraded and capable. (From what I can find, it appears a significant portion of the Turkish aircraft would currently be equipped with less capable air to air missiles than the Aim-9x, putting them significantly behind the IAF aircraft armed with the Python 5.) To the extent Turkey can effectively contest the airspace, it won't be enough to save the surface fleet, especially given the IAF options with the aerial refueling capability they have and the inherent range of their F-15s and their F-16Is for instance.

Now the military situation obviously gets far more complicated if Turkish ground troops are involved, and Israel clearly would like to avoid a military conflict and may respond according and let Turkey have some sort of "win" in this situation, but your evaluation of the details of the military balance as given was just very badly flawed. (Realistically Israel is clearly not seriously worried about such a military conflict or they would not have been recently involved with significantly upgrading various pieces of Turkish military equipment. The evidence is relations between the sides militarily are far better than the civilian ones.)

[Straha]

Don't everyone go jumping on the "America will try to cover Israel's ass" bandwagon too quickly. Obama has been putting pressure on Israel since he got into office and he most recently endorsed and pushed for the removal of Israeli nuclear weapons from the Middle East. There's also been talk about the U.S. sending envoys to Hamas behind Israel's back. Much as America might like Israel I think the White House has realized that Israel needs America more than America needs Israel, and until Israel realizes that fact and stops acting like the western version of North Kore the US wont go and bail its ass out.

And, if it does, it might force concessions from Israel, even the smallest of which will be more than has ever come out before, increasing U.S. political capital in the region and making Israel seem even more like a pariah state.

[Ace Pace]

The current Israeli line is rather obvious, Israel blocked the ships attempt to reach Gaza, which is under a military blockade. 5 out of six ships headed for Gaza were peacefully stopped. The sixth was armed and resisted the Israeli forces.
Their idea of resisting included assaulting, stabbing multiple soldiers and inviting fire. The Israeli reply was obvious, mass fire. I'm not really sure what the official government line is beyond that, being in a news blackout most of the day, but probably some stuff centered around "An unfortunate provocation by the Peace Activists against our blockade of Gaza lead to multiple deaths, we apologize. "

In addition, Haartz, Israels left wing intellectual newspaper, has some interesting articles.

Nine activists aboard the ship were killed and several more wounded in the clashes that erupted with Israel Navy troops at 4 A.M. on Monday. Eight of the Israeli soldiers were wounded, two of them seriously.

The other ships were towed to port over the course of the afternoon, with dozens of the activists detained for refusing to sign Israel's deportation orders. Only some 25 of the activists agreed to the order.

At least two of the activists who were wounded on the ship were detained after refusing treatment at the Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon. Some 34 of the foreigners were treated hospitals across Israel for their wounds.

[Flagg]

2 videos showing the first commandos landing and following actions, first one side view, second one top view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE
Seems that in order to be a peace activist these days, you don't have to be, you know, peaceful

So if your vessel was being attacked in international waters, you wouldn't fight them off?

[Omega18]

So if your vessel was being attacked in international waters, you wouldn't fight them off?

Given Israel appears to have clear justification under international law to at least board and inspect the ships in international waters, that's certainly stupid behavior which is likely to get people unnecessarily hurt. That same international law in question appears to give Israeli troops clear legal justification for firing in self defense if attacked in that situation.

[CBG]

So if your vessel was being attacked in international waters, you wouldn't fight them off?

1.Yes, if i was calling myself a peace activist. No, if i was calling myself a warship captain. Guess which one applies here.
2.If i sent it to run a blockade i would expect that someone might try to stop it, or at least inspect it.
3.The five other ships had no such problems as the turkish one, because they were not attacking Israeli military personnel.

[Sea Skimmer]

This gets better. It seems at least some of the Free Gaza ships had more then one flag flying or switched flags at sea... which means they in fact have NO FLAG and are a ship without nationality per article 92 of the UN Convention on The Law of The Sea which forbids such activity. Ships without nationality can be stopped anywhere by any nation regardless of other circumstances like an active war. So Israel may have even more legal justification in stopping this band of fools in international waters then it otherwise would have.

Piracy is not an issue, reading through the convention it seems that the operations of a military vessel simply cannot be piracy ever, unless the crew mutiny first.