Israeli forces attack humanitarian convoy in intl. waters

[Illuminatus Primus]

What do you think mil-porn infodumps actually prove, Shep?

[Kanastrous]

This is the ultimate propaganda disaster for Israel because it now unquestionably paints them in the light of their oppressors--they are doing the exact same thing that was done to them just sixty years ago, machine-gunning people armed only with axe-handles on the high seas.

Not quite exactly the same thing: a person aboard a boat on the high seas who is fleeing for his life from a continent where highly organized government and military forces are tasked with finding and killing him is not really at all interchangeable with a person who decides that, for their own satisfaction, they are going to try and run an announced military blockade in order to deliver supplies to territory controlled by an outfit like HAMAS.

'Peace activists' or 'Humanitarian activists' sit down nonviolently and let themselves be arrested, to show the world's cameras their moral righteousness and clarity-of-cause. Someone who chooses to take on the troops declares themselves a combatant, by doing so.

I mean, really can we have a show of hands as to how many people *really* believe that some shooting and death wasn't at least as appealing to this group, as a free landing and unloading of cargo? I think there's some cranial softening involved, in order to think that "Horrible Israelis Shoot Lovely Peace Activists" isn't a more desirable headline in many quarters, than "Israelis Display Humanitarian Concern by Allowing Ships to Land..."

[Zed]

So, a crew that has been informed that its ship will be boarded and diverted to an Israeli city if it continues, and is subsequently boarded by fully equipped soldiers, is supposed to know that these soldiers will only 'search' its cargo?

The crew chose to resist, as is clearly the case. It's violent resistance to an oppressor, and it's justified.

[ShadowDragon8685]

So what if other weapons were involved? The details are irrelevant, the public perception is everything. You know that.

Just how much of a P.R. Catastrofuck is this - Israeli boarders being beaten at with axe handles?

Obviously it looks back on the surface because of the obvious parallels, but how deep will it go? Will anybody who hasn't already vowed to drive every last Jew in Isreal into the sea really give a flying fuck? Will it shake the Israeli population's self-image/confidence? Or is it just going to be a handhold for everyone who already hate the Israli state to cry "Hippocrit" over?

What do you think would be the reaction of anyone else in the world to their troops boarding ships for searches of the cargo they contain (it's a regular evolution, happens all over the world); being attacked violently? Hint: it would be a much more quick and immediate reaction.

They certainly wouldn't have the bright idea to violently and reactionarily demolish the ship and send it to the bottom of the sea! They'd probably board the ship and pacify it by force - but that doesn't mean that it isn't a massive P.R. disaster on the side of the pacifiers.

Isreal could completely capitulate (fat fucking chance) and let the Turks land whomever and whatever they want. Cue immediate cries for the severing of all contact and claims that Turkey is supporting terrorism, which wouldn't be that far from the truth...

Can anybody think of a way this could be salved without a major, major incident?

The obvious alternative is a few creditable members of the Turkish military perhaps with additional backup from other inspectors go over the aid shipments with a fined tooth comb while looking for weapons and make sure nothing gets on the ships after these inspections are performed. It means the current blockade gets ended in certain respects, and some additional things are allowed through, but it doesn't represent an actual sources of weaponry to Hamas in Gaza.

I wouldn't bet on Isreal accepting that. From their point of view, it's their port and they goddamned well have the right to decide what and who will land at it, and nobody else. From the practical point of view, they're right, too, unless another nation is willing to pull a Commodore Perry on them.

I also don't think they'd much care for leaving the inspection of vessels which could potentially be handing weapons to muslim extremists to representatives of a nation which has a significant muslim majority, let alone one which actually has a muslim government. At the bare minimum they'd insist on one Israeli inspector to one Turk, and of course that'll go over not at all well - some asshole will decide he doesn't want to be inspected by an Israeli, grab an axe handle, and the shit goes down again. Israel won't tolerate one of it's inspectors being attacked and will send in the soldiers... And we get an encore.

Maybe they might entrust the inspection to members of a third party; probably a western third party, such as the UK, and in remote possibility a third party like Russia or China, but I doubt it. I wouldn't, either. Plus, of course, the question of where such inspectors would be found.

[Stark]

Blockades do not necessarily have to take place within national waters in order to be legal. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the naval quarantine was outside of Cuban waters. Additionally, piracy implies non-state actors undertaking the boarding. As this was done by Israeli military personnel, it by definition is not piracy.

You mean that blockade they had to mendaciously declare a 'quarrantine zone' to avoid actually declaring war? That one? Blockades are war; they've just been at war with Arabs for 50 years so nobody cares.

And 10+ foot long poles. See the video I posted.

If that had been happening to one of my teams; I'd have withdrawn my troopers and then proceeded to rake the ship in question with three inch and five inch (if I could have it) gunfire, until it was a burning wreck in the water. Then I'd apply a coup-de grace with an under the hull shot from a torpedo.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[MKSheppard]

*snip inane whine from Stark*

You have anything else to add? It can take hundreds of 5" rounds to put a ship into a sinking condition; much less 3" (76mm); and even then a ship can still remain afloat and be a hazard to navigation for a surprisingly long amount of time. Short of actually sending a boarding team over to plant explosives to blow out the bottom of the hull; a torpedo shot is the fastest way of bringing down a ship.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is the ultimate propaganda disaster for Israel because it now unquestionably paints them in the light of their oppressors--they are doing the exact same thing that was done to them just sixty years ago, machine-gunning people armed only with axe-handles on the high seas.

Not quite exactly the same thing: a person aboard a boat on the high seas who is fleeing for his life from a continent where highly organized government and military forces are tasked with finding and killing him is not really at all interchangeable with a person who decides that, for their own satisfaction, they are going to try and run an announced military blockade in order to deliver supplies to territory controlled by an outfit like HAMAS.

Yeah, because the Irgun was so different from HAMAS, and the Nazi menace was still operating crematoria in 1947. Oh wait.

'Peace activists' or 'Humanitarian activists' sit down nonviolently and let themselves be arrested, to show the world's cameras their moral righteousness and clarity-of-cause. Someone who chooses to take on the troops declares themselves a combatant, by doing so.

This bullshit standard of mandatory peaceful disobedience, while noble, is ridiculous. Its required of Israel simply for political and rhetorical reasons. People have the right to resist their unlawful oppressors. That's a truism. One may dislike Yugoslav communist partisans while supporting their overall efforts to resist grim foreign and bloody rule. But certainly this principle fails to be applied fairly today, when it comes to the actions of American clients.

I mean, really can we have a show of hands as to how many people *really* believe that some shooting and death wasn't at least as appealing to this group, as a free landing and unloading of cargo? I think there's some cranial softening involved, in order to think that "Horrible Israelis Shoot Lovely Peace Activists" isn't a more desirable headline in many quarters, than "Israelis Display Humanitarian Concern by Allowing Ships to Land..."

I'm sure they wanted to die. What an utter imbecile you are.

[Zed]

*snip inane whine from Stark*

You have anything else to add? It can take hundreds of 5" rounds to put a ship into a sinking condition; much less 3" (76mm); and even then a ship can still remain afloat and be a hazard to navigation for a surprisingly long amount of time. Short of actually sending a boarding team over to plant explosives to blow out the bottom of the hull; a torpedo shot is the fastest way of bringing down a ship.

I don't exactly think that's what he was mocking.

[Sarevok]

You are not allowed to defend yourself from naval commandoes in tacticool gear using sticks only. Thats dangerous and immoral ! However shooting down the helicopter the commandoes came in would be ok in the might makes right world Israel believes in.

[Illuminatus Primus]

*snip inane whine from Stark*

You have anything else to add? It can take hundreds of 5" rounds to put a ship into a sinking condition; much less 3" (76mm); and even then a ship can still remain afloat and be a hazard to navigation for a surprisingly long amount of time. Short of actually sending a boarding team over to plant explosives to blow out the bottom of the hull; a torpedo shot is the fastest way of bringing down a ship.

You're missing the point, what you're saying is so tone-deaf-ly unaware of the real modern world and practically realistic consequences of theoretical actions, that you are functionally self-parodying. You seem to think and conceive of the world in terms that are completely divorced from the common human understanding which actually exists. Rather you seem to post these things not out of constructive contribution, but out of some self-congratulatory, emotionally self-indulgent wish-thinking or vicariously-living fantasy-projection. Stark laughs because your suggestion was functionally irrelevant and objectively preposterous.

[Omega18]

I'm sure they wanted to die. What an utter imbecile you are.

Frankly its INCREDIBLY CLEAR at this point they deliberately planned to get fired upon in some of the specific cases and provoked it with their actions. Its rather preposterous to try effectively arguing otherwise barring significant surprising new evidence surfacing, which would probably have to involve the video being counterfeit or the Israeli force injury claims being false. (They may have figured they would only be wounded or some other suckers were the actual ones who would be killed rather than being suicidal.)

The video and number of Israel casualties simply doesn't match up with the idea the Israeli troops fired at the crew first, unless the crew truly was suicidal and proceeded to attack the Israelis in the face of live ammunition. (Which certainly clearly fits in with the "wanted to die evaluation."

[Master of Ossus]

I'm sure they wanted to die. What an utter imbecile you are.

They may not have wanted to die, but they certainly used deadly force long before the Israeli commandoes used it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm sure they wanted to die. What an utter imbecile you are.

Frankly its INCREDIBLY CLEAR at this point they deliberately planned to get fired upon in some of the specific cases and provoked it with their actions. Its rather preposterous to try effectively arguing otherwise barring significant surprising new evidence surfacing, which would probably have to involve the video being counterfeit or the Israeli force injury claims being false. (They may have figured they would only be wounded or some other suckers were the actual ones who would be killed rather than being suicidal.)

The video and number of Israel casualties simply doesn't match up with the idea the Israeli troops fired at the crew first, unless the crew truly was suicidal and proceeded to attack the Israelis in the face of live ammunition. (Which certainly clearly fits in with the "wanted to die evaluation."

The will to resist is separate from the issue of suicidal behavior. Nations, religious, and ideologies of all stripes find all kinds of occasions to eulogize and applaud and canonize such behavior, and I'm sure most of the people on this board identify with some instances of this, so to pretend to find it conceptually impossible to comprehend is fatuous. You sound like Robert McNamara talking about how North Vietnam didn't care about its people because it refused to lay on its belly before American terror. I suppose a Nazi general could have reflected on Churchill's madness and hatred of Britons for not submitting before oppression and terror (this opinion is not as absurd as it sounds, since anti-war quarters suggested it at the time and is still propped up by isolationists like Pat Buchanan).

[Kanastrous]

This is the ultimate propaganda disaster for Israel because it now unquestionably paints them in the light of their oppressors--they are doing the exact same thing that was done to them just sixty years ago, machine-gunning people armed only with axe-handles on the high seas.

Not quite exactly the same thing: a person aboard a boat on the high seas who is fleeing for his life from a continent where highly organized government and military forces are tasked with finding and killing him is not really at all interchangeable with a person who decides that, for their own satisfaction, they are going to try and run an announced military blockade in order to deliver supplies to territory controlled by an outfit like HAMAS.

Yeah, because the Irgun was so different from HAMAS, and the Nazi menace was still operating crematoria in 1947. Oh wait.

What does Irgun vs. HAMAS, and the operating schedule of crematoria have to do with the fact that the people back in the 40s were refugees, and the people today are not refugees, or in the main themselves oppressed, but rather people who chose to place themselves in this position, chose to make their 'humanitarian cruise,' chose to try and run a blockade about which they had ample warning and foreknowledge, and chose to attack combat-equipped troops, boarding their vessel?

I mean, nice try at the distraction, there, but I don't believe that you have managed to show how the refugees of the 1940s are interchangeable with the 'peace activists' of today.

'Peace activists' or 'Humanitarian activists' sit down nonviolently and let themselves be arrested, to show the world's cameras their moral righteousness and clarity-of-cause. Someone who chooses to take on the troops declares themselves a combatant, by doing so.

This bullshit standard of mandatory peaceful disobedience, while noble, is ridiculous.

Yeah, Mahatma Gandhi was plain ridiculous. Obviously that's why he's so disrespectfully remembered, and why his efforts in India failed so...

..oh, wait a minute.

Its required of Israel simply for political and rhetorical reasons. People have the right to resist their unlawful oppressors.

So now the people sent onto your ship for the purpose of enforcing the blockade about you were loudly and insistently warned, is 'unlawful oppression?' Those boats aren't Gaza or the West Bank, and simply tying themselves to the same cause doesn't mean they get to make the same claims.

That's a truism. One may dislike Yugoslav communist partisans while supporting their overall efforts to resist grim foreign and bloody rule. But certainly this principle fails to be applied fairly today, when it comes to the actions of American clients.

The point is that people who wish to wear the mantle of 'Peace Activist' etc are claiming a specific kind of moral high ground, by doing so. If they choose to adopt fighting as their method of resistance, that does not reflect upon the moral value of their cause, but it for shit-sure means that they are no longer truthful, in calling themselves 'Peace Activists.' There are plenty of more accurate (or semi-accurate terms) for the people who choose to fight: freedom fighter, insurgent, rebel, whatever - but 'Peace Activist' just diesn't work when you're swinging clubs, poles, and big-ass camera tripods at people's heads.

I mean, really can we have a show of hands as to how many people *really* believe that some shooting and death wasn't at least as appealing to this group, as a free landing and unloading of cargo? I think there's some cranial softening involved, in order to think that "Horrible Israelis Shoot Lovely Peace Activists" isn't a more desirable headline in many quarters, than "Israelis Display Humanitarian Concern by Allowing Ships to Land..."

I'm sure they wanted to die. What an utter imbecile you are.

I you think that people do not become inflamed with passion for their causes and deliberately place themselves in harm's way with the willingness to become martyrs for their cause - well, I'm checking 'imbecile' in my dictionary and not finding you. Although there is a remarkable likeness, under the heading of 'Fucking Detached From Reality.'

[Omega18]

The will to resist is separate from the issue of suicidal behavior. Nations, religious, and ideologies of all stripes find all kinds of occasions to eulogize and applaud and canonize such behavior, and I'm sure most of the people on this board identify with some instances of this, so to pretend to find it conceptually impossible to comprehend is fatuous. You sound like Robert McNamara talking about how North Vietnam didn't care about its people because it refused to lay on its belly before American terror. I suppose a Nazi general could have reflected on Churchill's madness and hatred of Britons for not submitting before oppression and terror (this opinion is not as absurd as it sounds, since anti-war quarters suggested it at the time and is still propped up by isolationists like Pat Buchanan).

I'll note you just Goodwin Lawed yourself.

More relevantly, they knew they were being inspected by military personnel and it was obvious nothing really was going to happen to them unless someone resisted. It could have been a reasonably effective protest without resorting to making things violent. It was not the people on board the transport who can make a real argument about being oppressed in general. (Or at best the few who can say such suckered a bunch of other protesters into being casualties for propaganda purposes.) As noted, Israel has let supplies through, and clearly letting random supplies which haven't been inspected at all through would not be reasonable for Israel given Hamas's stance and the possibility of allot of additional weapons including rockets going through.

[Kanastrous]

You are not allowed to defend yourself from naval commandoes in tacticool gear using sticks only. Thats dangerous and immoral ! However shooting down the helicopter the commandoes came in would be ok in the might makes right world Israel believes in.

Regardless of your take in general, that at least would have been impressive.

[Zed]

'Peace activists' or 'Humanitarian activists' sit down nonviolently and let themselves be arrested, to show the world's cameras their moral righteousness and clarity-of-cause. Someone who chooses to take on the troops declares themselves a combatant, by doing so.

This bullshit standard of mandatory peaceful disobedience, while noble, is ridiculous.

Yeah, Mahatma Gandhi was plain ridiculous. Obviously that's why he's so disrespectfully remembered, and why his efforts in India failed so...

..oh, wait a minute.

Gandhi considered violence preferable to cowardice. Non-violence was for the select few who were willing to give up their lives in the attempt to encourage reform, without fighting back.

"At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets."

P.S.: I'll repeat my question for whoever's still using the term "peaceful activist", including the scarequotes: Where do they describe themselves so?

[Illuminatus Primus]

What does Irgun vs. HAMAS, and the operating schedule of crematoria have to do with the fact that the people back in the 40s were refugees, and the people today are not refugees, or in the main themselves oppressed, but rather people who chose to place themselves in this position, chose to make their 'humanitarian cruise,' chose to try and run a blockade about which they had ample warning and foreknowledge, and chose to attack combat-equipped troops, boarding their vessel?

I mean, nice try at the distraction, there, but I don't believe that you have managed to show how the refugees of the 1940s are interchangeable with the 'peace activists' of today.

Horseshit. You are the one who said the Jews of Europe were running from people trying to kill them, thus trying to make the case they were coerced fleeing masses. This is fatuous, since the Exodus happened in 1947. You said that they weren't bad like people trying to help Hamas, yet Israel was founded by Jewish Zionist terrorist organizations -- now lionized, including the Irgun and worse -- which felt they had every resort on many occasions to armed violent force, including against civilians opponents, Arab and British, a constitutional representative state.

'Peace activists' or 'Humanitarian activists' sit down nonviolently and let themselves be arrested, to show the world's cameras their moral righteousness and clarity-of-cause. Someone who chooses to take on the troops declares themselves a combatant, by doing so.

This bullshit standard of mandatory peaceful disobedience, while noble, is ridiculous.

Yeah, Mahatma Gandhi was plain ridiculous. Obviously that's why he's so disrespectfully remembered, and why his efforts in India failed so...

My point is that they're not automatically disqualified as moral actors because they do not do what Ghandi did. And the fact is that terror almost always succeeds. No one slights the colonial militia at Lexington for returning fire and pursuing the British regulars through the forest. Violent resistance is not incredible in principle. Everyone accepts it is not only sometimes justifiable, but sometimes laudable, even praiseworthy. I don't think there any philosophical pacifists here.

So now the people sent onto your ship for the purpose of enforcing the blockade about you were loudly and insistently warned, is 'unlawful oppression?'

This is an explicitly preposterous argument. Take any - ANY - example of what you think was a historical terroristic or oppressive faction, and tell me that they divorced themselves from moral responsibility by offering a warning. No one follows that reasoning. You can dispute whether it is unlawful oppression as a factual matter, but this dispute, that forewarning is a free pass, is preposterous.

Those boats aren't Gaza or the West Bank, and simply tying themselves to the same cause doesn't mean they get to make the same claims.

On what grounds does Israel have the right to restrict free access to territory not its own. The American quarantine of Cuba was at least internationally ratified. The resort to force places the burden of proof on those who support and initiate it. Israel I doubt can meet that burden.

The point is that people who wish to wear the mantle of 'Peace Activist' etc are claiming a specific kind of moral high ground, by doing so. If they choose to adopt fighting as their method of resistance, that does not reflect upon the moral value of their cause, but it for shit-sure means that they are no longer truthful, in calling themselves 'Peace Activists.' There are plenty of more accurate (or semi-accurate terms) for the people who choose to fight: freedom fighter, insurgent, rebel, whatever - but 'Peace Activist' just diesn't work when you're swinging clubs, poles, and big-ass camera tripods at people's heads.

Sure, it may be poor form. But its quite marginal. Its nothing compared to preposterous claims by Americans and Zionists that the U.S. and Israel support peace and desire it. As usual, lets focus on the marginal case of poorly-organized and sloppy protesters attacking soldiers enforcing a blockade of illegally occupied and subjugated territories. How many Palestinians die due to the economic suppression of the occupied territories? How many die in Israel's wars against them?

I you think that people do not become inflamed with passion for their causes and deliberately place themselves in harm's way with the willingness to become martyrs for their cause - well, I'm checking 'imbecile' in my dictionary and not finding you. Although there is a remarkable likeness, under the heading of 'Fucking Detached From Reality.'

This sentence doesn't make sense. My point stands, deliberate suicidal tendencies are something apart from principled resistance, and everyone acknowledges this when it flatters their ideological crushes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I will note that it is unquestionably illegal under international law to divert neutral shipping from their port of destination by prior decision. Informing the convoy that they would be boarded and diverted did, in fact, tell them "we will be seizing your ships illegally". A blockade has a right to board ships and inspect them for War Contraband, and seize them if they carry war contraband aboard. The Israelis announced to the convoy that it's ships would be seized and directed to Israeli ports before the ships had been boarded, before the ships were inspected, and therefore by definition before any war contraband could be found. In doing so they told the people on the convoy that they would be diverted whether or not the diversion was legal. That is certainly grounds on which it could be argued that armed resistance to the boarding is legal and appropriate.


EDIT added Addendum:

Note that if some of the ships were carrying concrete, they could be seized and diverted to Haifa. If others were carrying food and medical supplies only, they should have been legally allowed to proceed. This is the other problematic feature, the entire convoy was diverted summarily without consideration of the potentially differing cargoes on differing ships. Though it certainly may be possible that some of the ships were carrying war contraband like concrete and therefore could be seized (and even condemned and taken over by Israel if more than half the cargo is contraband) under traditional rules of blockade, the problem is that the Israelis had decided to divert all of the ships in advance, and informed the convoy it would be seized in this illegal manner, instead of stopping them and searching each ship and making a decision after the ships had been searched for war contraband. Had Israel done this and allowed ships without war contraband, if any, to proceed to Gaza, then the armed resistance would justify the seizure and condemnation of the ships.

Instead the Israelis informed the convoy in advance that regardless of the legality of their cargoes they would be seized. This informed the ships that they would be acted against illegally regardless of what they carried or did. So of course they resisted violently, it's like the police coming to your house and saying "there might be crack cocaine in your house but instead of getting a warrant and checking we're just going to condemn your house and take it from you right now". The Israeli handling of this in short is inept, arrogant, and completely disastrous.

[CJvR]

P.S.: I'll repeat my question for whoever's still using the term "peaceful activist", including the scarequotes: Where do they describe themselves so?

Given their behavior perhaps we should rename them "War activists" instead?

[MKSheppard]

You're missing the point, what you're saying is so tone-deaf-ly unaware of the real modern world and practically realistic consequences of theoretical actions, that you are functionally self-parodying.

No actually, I am considering this through.

I am hippothetically the Israeli Naval Commander on the scene. My mission orders are:

1.) Prevent flotilla from reaching Gaza.

2.) Preserve the life of my men (Israel has such a small population that 10-20 guys dying is a big shock politically).

Now; I tried to achieve objective ONE via fast roping my boarding team onto the ship -- and I'm meeting heavy resistance; and one of my men has been seized and tossed 30 feet onto a deck. Stun grenades are being used, with little effect.

I could continue on to seize the ship; but my boarding team is fairly small -- 10 to 15 men at the most; and they boarded the ship armed with a suboptimal set of weapons -- paintball carbines, and pistols as backups.

The other five ships have surrendered peacefully, and are proceeding under escort to an Israeli port -- but there's no gurantee that something like this could happen on those other five ships; and my forces are already being split between ships supporting the assault on Ship Six and escorting the other five ships to Israel.

So I can't screw around forever on ship six. I could insert more troops via fast roping or via boat caving ladder; but as you've seen from the video (which I am viewing live) that inserting more men is risky, as they board one by one.

Best way to achieve objective ONE and TWO is to withdraw my men from the ship; and then sink it; rather than sending more men over to physically clear it compartment by compartment.

Sinking can be achieved several ways:

1.) Using a ASW torpedo set on wake homing mode to blow away the rudder and screw -- the ship would then be immobile in the water, and slowly taking on water, but not so fast that the people on board can evacuate in life boats, etc.

2.) Pump it full of gunfire from my deck gun -- this option would be used if the gun was already supporting my troops on the ships by providing cover fire.

3.) Use several ASW torpedoes set for under the keel detonation to break the back of the ship, and ensure rapid sinking. This would result in heavy casualties if the ship was still full of people.

I'd probably go with a mix of all three -- deck gun to cover my troops as they withdraw. Probably would set some of the ship on fire in the process; an ASW torpedo to immobilize the ship; then I broadcast over my intention to sink the ship in 30 minutes -- you guys better be taking to the lifeboats soon; and then at the deadline, break the keel, whether people are on it or not.

Brutal? Sure. But it gets the job done. As you might have guessed, I am a throwback to the good old days where nearly unlimited force was used to force ends to conflicts, rather than letting them drag on for 50+ years as this particular one has.

[Master of Ossus]

Instead the Israelis informed the convoy in advance that regardless of the legality of their cargoes they would be seized. This informed the ships that they would be acted against illegally regardless of what they carried or did. So of course they resisted violently, it's like the police coming to your house and saying "there might be crack cocaine in your house but instead of getting a warrant and checking we're just going to condemn your house and take it from you right now". The Israeli handling of this in short is inept, arrogant, and completely disastrous.

First of all, I can't find anything to the effect that your presumption about the Israeli statement to the ships was true, but furthermore even if that is what police were telling me that wouldn't justify my application of deadly force against them.

[Zed]

Brutal? Sure. But it gets the job done. As you might have guessed, I am a throwback to the good old days where nearly unlimited force was used to force ends to conflicts, rather than letting them drag on for 50+ years as this particular one has.

You'd have started a war with Turkey.

[MKSheppard]

This ironically, does show how utterly incompetent the Israeli Navy is -- the Israelis make such a great thing about never planning in depth for anything -- all of the planning is devolved onto the lower level unit commanders -- while this works for special forces operating in limited roles; it does not scale up to the whole spectrum of warfare.

Did nobody ever ask or plan out what to do if there was resistance on the ships? From the way things shook down, I don't think anyone did.

Prediction for if the Turks escort the next convoy?

Israeli navy challenges; gets several ships sunk, for one turkish ship damaged -- and the IAF has to sink the remainder of the convoy -- since they seem to be the most professional of the Israeli branches; and we know that the Israeli Navy has a proclivity for turning off ship self defense features like ECM, CIWS, etc for no damn reason (this is why INS Hanit was hit).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Instead the Israelis informed the convoy in advance that regardless of the legality of their cargoes they would be seized. This informed the ships that they would be acted against illegally regardless of what they carried or did. So of course they resisted violently, it's like the police coming to your house and saying "there might be crack cocaine in your house but instead of getting a warrant and checking we're just going to condemn your house and take it from you right now". The Israeli handling of this in short is inept, arrogant, and completely disastrous.

First of all, I can't find anything to the effect that your presumption about the Israeli statement to the ships was true,

Here's the quote for the source, from the nicely reputable main media outlet of India:

The standoff between Israel and international supporters of the Gaza aid flotilla is coming to a head with the deployment of the Israeli warships on Saturday to stop the convoy once it entered Israeli controlled waters.

According to the Israeli navy, eight ships are sailing towards Gaza.

The convoy named Freedom Flotilla is likely to set sail towards the Gaza Strip from the international waters off the shores of Cyprus on Saturday afternoon, Israel Radio said.

Palestinian media sources said that if the ships pursue their pre-set timetable they were expected to arrive in Israeli territorial waters on Sunday morning.

Analysts point out that the expected denial of the flotilla's movement towards Gaza is likely to raise tensions between Israel and Turkey.

The ships belongs to Insani Yardim Vakfi (Humanitarian Aid Association), a Turkish, non-governmental organisation (NGO). Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had earlier appealed to Israel to lift its blockade to allow the flotilla to complete its humanitarian mission in Gaza.

Earlier on Friday, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said the aid convoy manifested “violent propaganda against Israel, and Israel will not allow its sovereignty to be threatened in any way, in any place land, air or sea”.

Mr. Lieberman denied existence of any humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and stressed that despite rocket fire on Israeli towns by Hamas, Israel was responding to Gaza's internal situation “in the most humane way”.

On his part, Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh on Saturday said any attack on the flotilla by Israel would be internationally viewed as a victory for the Palestinians. “The meaning of the flotilla is that the entire world opposes the siege on the Gaza Strip, and if Israel behaves like pirates and sea-terrorists — we will win,” he said.

Israel's Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that once the ships enter the 32 km Israeli-controlled zone, they would be overtaken and towed to the Israeli port of Ashdod.

The foreign nationals would be handed over to Immigration Police for deportation, he observed.

The bolded part provides proof that Israel intended to divert the ships regardless of the legality of doing zone. And note that despite claiming that the 32km-Israel controlled zone was when they'd be overtaken, in reality the attack occurred at 90 nautical miles, far beyond that zone.

but furthermore even if that is what police were telling me that wouldn't justify my application of deadly force against them.

It was a bad example. The police have both jurisdiction in such a scenario, and law courts to answer to. The Israelis don't have either one, so resistance is a rather more obvious recourse.