Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Well clearly the Germans have gone back to Nazism.Serafina wrote:Virtually every german news article is heavily bashing Isreal, accusing them of lying and waging war against the palestinan population now.
Well, i am actually relieved that german media finally manages to differentiate between critizing Israel and critizising jews.GeneralSchatten wrote:Well clearly the Germans have gone back to Nazism.
Let hope so. I'd assume as much but then again, according to the compromise, references to an international investigation have been removed so we'll see how it turns out.Serafina wrote: -The United Nations Security Council condemned Isreals actions and demands a "neutral, transparent investigation". If i am not mistaken, that would not be done by Israel.
I wonder how that will be decided.-Israel plans to release the prisoners "as soon as possible". However, they want to "retain people hostile to Israel".
You seem to fail to grasp what Shep was proposing. He wasn't advocating for use of overwhelming force to extract the endangered soldiers, he advocated using overwhelming force after the soldiers were extracted to slaughter all the civilians, and then torpedo the thing to sink it. He advocates use of overwhelming force with intention to annihilate rather than subdue. How can you claim such a thing is moraly justified?Darth Hoth wrote:Would doing so have been the moral thing to do? Equally beyond doubt.
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source) - PeZook Sinking the ship and killing everyone aboard it would prevent humanitarian supplies from reaching Gaza, preventing Hamas from using plastic IV bottles to manufacture undetectable plastic landmines and turning IV tubing into garrote wire, thus preventing Israel from launching Cast Dead to kill more Palestinians. Shep's argument is that if Israel launches a torpedo to sink a ship full of civilians, then Israel won't have to launch a torpedo to sink a Gaza Strip full of even more civilians. Or something like that.LordOskuro wrote:You seem to fail to grasp what Shep was proposing. He wasn't advocating for use of overwhelming force to extract the endangered soldiers, he advocated using overwhelming force after the soldiers were extracted to slaughter all the civilians, and then torpedo the thing to sink it. He advocates use of overwhelming force with intention to annihilate rather than subdue. How can you claim such a thing is moraly justified?Darth Hoth wrote:Would doing so have been the moral thing to do? Equally beyond doubt.
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source) - PeZookCalling them hamas-supporters is getting close to it (if not worse).Shroom Man 777 wrote:I would love for Israel, or some other dudes, saying that those critics and people angry at them are just a bunch of anti-Semites.
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.
Well, legally Isreal can it have one of three ways:VT-16 wrote:I thought the blockade itself wasn't legal to begin with? What is the status on that, if they're performing a legal boarding based on an illegal blockade? I've noticed the usage of words that almost treats Gaza as a separate nation, partly to justify the blockade. Even though it is technically part of Israel.
Isn't this just an example of jumping from argument to argument in order to justify and legitimize a shakey procedure?
Sheppard said:LordOskuro wrote:You seem to fail to grasp what Shep was proposing. He wasn't advocating for use of overwhelming force to extract the endangered soldiers, he advocated using overwhelming force after the soldiers were extracted to slaughter all the civilians, and then torpedo the thing to sink it. He advocates use of overwhelming force with intention to annihilate rather than subdue. How can you claim such a thing is moraly justified?
Which makes perfect sense. The objective is to detain the ship if possible, but at any rate to stop it. The way to do that with as few casualties for your own side as possible (preferably zero) is a massively disproportionate response to the belligerence of the violent pacifists. He is not advocating blowing them up for the Hell of it, he is advocating blowing them up when they have been given the option to surrender and failed to do so. And while taking them alive is obviously preferable (so that they can be made to stand trial, if nothing else), in such a situation it may not be practical; attempting to use less lethal measures may result in unacceptable risks for your men. I would not blame any military commander who, under such circumstances, started shooting and did not stop till he either saw a white flag or nothing moving on the boat.Yes; I would sink the ship, even if the "civilians" hadn't left it. I am a very simple person. Instead of escalating through a twenty step ladder sequentially, I escalate 10-15 steps up to massive, disproportionate overwhelming force; since it saves more lives in the end than simply following up the escalation ladder bloody step by bloody step.
Darth Hoth wrote:Sheppard said:LordOskuro wrote:You seem to fail to grasp what Shep was proposing. He wasn't advocating for use of overwhelming force to extract the endangered soldiers, he advocated using overwhelming force after the soldiers were extracted to slaughter all the civilians, and then torpedo the thing to sink it. He advocates use of overwhelming force with intention to annihilate rather than subdue. How can you claim such a thing is moraly justified?
Which makes perfect sense. The objective is to detain the ship if possible, but at any rate to stop it. The way to do that with as few casualties for your own side as possible (preferably zero) is a massively disproportionate response to the belligerence of the violent pacifists. He is not advocating blowing them up for the Hell of it, he is advocating blowing them up when they have been given the option to surrender and failed to do so. And while taking them alive is obviously preferable (so that they can be made to stand trial, if nothing else), in such a situation it may not be practical; attempting to use less lethal measures may result in unacceptable risks for your men. I would not blame any military commander who, under such circumstances, started shooting and did not stop till he either saw a white flag or nothing moving on the boat.Yes; I would sink the ship, even if the "civilians" hadn't left it. I am a very simple person. Instead of escalating through a twenty step ladder sequentially, I escalate 10-15 steps up to massive, disproportionate overwhelming force; since it saves more lives in the end than simply following up the escalation ladder bloody step by bloody step.
You seem to be operating under the assumption that just because these people are "civilians" they must be innocent, and no military force can be applied to them because that would not be very nice. This is patently false. They are armed, dangerous, and provenly belligerent. They are are illegal combatants who have assaulted Israel's military with deadly force. In doing so, they have chosen their own fate by launching an act of war upon a sovereign state and attacking its soldiers when they were only pursuing their perfectly legal and legitimate duties.
If public opinion slants to Flotilla = Hamas! then yeah, disgusting but not unexpected. I'd be surprised of Israeli newspapers give a fair and balanced reporting on this clusterfuck.Einzige wrote: EDIT: Wow. This video shows Israelis celebrating in front of the Turkish embassy. What absolutely worthless assholes.
You have internet - you can access all the mainstream media from there.Einzige wrote:So how far along is the American media in doing damage control for Israel on this issue? I (intentionally) don't have a television, so I can't keep up to date with the mainstream media.
I don't though. I guess I should. I need to find a few really excellent foreign news sources; I used to keep up with the BBC, but they've gone to shit in recent years.Serafina wrote:You have internet - you can access all the mainstream media from there.Einzige wrote:So how far along is the American media in doing damage control for Israel on this issue? I (intentionally) don't have a television, so I can't keep up to date with the mainstream media.
I don't know about that. This is another issue that can tear the Republicans asunder: the theocrats and the neo-cons (represented here, for instance, by Shep) are ridiculously philosemitic and anti-Islam. The libertarian leaners, on the other hand, tend to be skeptical of Israel, to say the least. Depending on which way the Republican Party goes in its coming civil war, I can see it becoming the more pro-Palestinian of the two within a decade or two.Coyote wrote:(I don't see the GOP becoming a pro-Palestinain/anti-Israel faction any time soon, they have too many pro-Israeli Evangelical Christians to lose).
Why not? The USCG(and USN vessels on CRACKPACs) stops vessels bound for the US all the time well off shore.Serafina wrote: Well, legally Isreal can it have one of three ways:
1: They are an occupying force in Gaza. In that case, they have the right to search for weapons once the ship reaches the sea-territory of the occupied nation. But they are also responsible for the well-being of their occupied territory. In that case, they can be held accountable for any mistreatment of civilians there. They obviously do not want that - and their search now would have been illegal.
2: They are at war with Gaza. In that case, they are not responsible for civilians there and can legally enforce a blockade.
But that would mean that they accept Gaza as a nation, since you can only be at war with another nation. They don't want that either.
3: Gaza is part of their own territory. In that case, everyone there would be part of their own nation. Which would mean that they are mistreating their own population on a massive scale.
None of these legal options is acceptable for Israel. So they choose just to ignore the issue and use whatever explanation is most suitable for them at the moment.
In case of option 1, their demand to travel to one of their own ports would have been legal - but not searching for weapons before it arrives there, and the order could not be legally given in international waters.
Israel would make the argument that The US did the same to ships bound for Japan in WW2(outright sinking them) and that Britain did the same through boarding of vessels during WW1.In case of option 2, the search would have been legal, but there would be no obligation to follow the order to travel to that port (tough it would not be illegal). However, that would also mean that they commited an act of war against every nation under which flag the ships there sailed.
The US did it during the ACW, and the UK accepted the precedent.In case of option 3, neither of those things would have been legal in international waters - also an act of war.
I believe --I may be wrong, though-- that the Libertarian branch is skeptical about "international entanglements" of any sort, and would cut back US partnership in things like NATO and others, in general. Israel would be one of many leaves to be dropped from the tree.Einzige wrote:This is another issue that can tear the Republicans asunder: the theocrats and the neo-cons (represented here, for instance, by Shep) are ridiculously philosemitic and anti-Islam. The libertarian leaners, on the other hand, tend to be skeptical of Israel, to say the least.
So really, the GOP has to work out its internal issues first before they can pick a side. The Muslim voting bloc won't see any real results for a few years, then. I can actually see the Muslim community finding a comfortable co-existence with Libertarians.Depending on which way the Republican Party goes in its coming civil war, I can see it becoming the more pro-Palestinian of the two within a decade or two.
The only reasonable szenario for armed conflict between Turkey and Israel would look something like that:Coyote wrote:NATO won't back an armed intervention for a couple of reasons: while ostensibly to support the Turks, in the long run NATOs reason for going to war would be interpreted as "NATO going to war for the right to support Hamas" --Hamas, which is listed as a terrorist organization. People can split hairs by saying "no, we are supporting the Palestinian people, not Hamas." But like it or not, Hamas is the ruling authority there (elected by those people). There will be strong words and harsh language, and rounds of condemnation, and Israel probably faces serious sanctions.
They didn't fire on foreighn citizens trying to help starving people.People conveniently forget that Egypt was also enforcing this exact same blockade.
Um...Israel inspecting the ships and letting them supply Gaza with food?-There's a gallows humor to the angle that people were trying to take supplies to Gaza because Israel is heavy-handed and forceful, and then they're all shocked and amazed that Israel lashes out in a heavy-handed and forceful manner; I mean, seriously, what did they really expect? To be greeted as liberators?
Oh, shut up.-For all the moral outrage about Irgun being a terrorist organization pretending to be a government, the truth is Hamas is pretty much the same.
It doesn't produce international incidents. As long as no one complains, it doesn't matter.Lonestar wrote:Why not? The USCG(and USN vessels on CRACKPACs) stops vessels bound for the US all the time well off shore.
Well of course they did! They were at war with another nation, remember?Israel would make the argument that The US did the same to ships bound for Japan in WW2(outright sinking them) and that Britain did the same through boarding of vessels during WW1.
Well, the american civil was was quite a while ago. I don't know wether it's relevant or not - but again, times of war are different.The US did it during the ACW, and the UK accepted the precedent.
You're right in your analysis, but Israel itself is often singled out as one of the main issues that need to be dealt with differently. Some, I admit, are anti-Semitic (these tend to be paleoconservatives of the Pat Buchanan variety or 'paleolibertarians'), but others - and I number myself among these - simply see little benefit to continuing to anger the Islamic world in favor of a nation that produces nothing we need and grants us little obvious benefit via a continued partnership in the region.Coyote wrote:I believe --I may be wrong, though-- that the Libertarian branch is skeptical about "international entanglements" of any sort, and would cut back US partnership in things like NATO and others, in general. Israel would be one of many leaves to be dropped from the tree.
