Mavi Marmara Raid

[Sergeant T]

Most media are calling it an attack (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?ref=global-home), some even calling it a “bloody massacre (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid.resolution/index.html?hpt=T2)”, by the Israelis. Makes one wonder what international reaction would have been were it not for the IDF video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo) of its people being mobbed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2duPV9MQIc&feature=related) as they fast-roped in. 600 “activists” seems like a lot of people to deliver children's playgrounds and stationary items (http://www.gazaflotilla.org/). Just another in a long line of Hamas Bloody Sunday scenarios? It does make me wonder: Based on what was known before the raid, not now, what should the Israelis have done differently?

[slapout9]

Based on what was known before the raid, not now, what should the Israelis have done differently?

Disable the ships and have a neutral 3rd party tow them back to Turkey.

[Red Rat]

It smacks of what we call a 'PR Trap', and it looks like the Israelis have been badly caught out.

IMHO they appear to have done most things right, they have clearly captured most of the incident on reasonable quality sound and audio recordings which gives them the means to fight the alternative narrative put forward by Hamas and the like. They have acted within International Law and their actions can be argued as necessary, proportionate and justifiable, although comment in the UK is switching as to whether the Gaza blocakade is proportionate (an therefore justifiable and legitimate).

I would be interested to know what the Israeli thinking was on their tactics. There were a lot of people on board the ship and with the potential for having to conduct crowd control on board I might have expected to see baton rounds, CS gas and stun grenades all in use; as well as a much larger boarding party.

Of course going in mob handed while probably safer for all concerns still leads to presentational concerns - the PR trap again.

Disabling the engines and towing to a secure location or a third party does seem a good approach, possibly minimising direct confrontation on board (although towing without the consent of the crew may be practically problematic) and depending where towed to the media access can be better regulated.

RR

[bourbon]

It does make me wonder: Based on what was known before the raid, not now, what should the Israelis have done differently?
I think deteriorating relations with Turkey limited Israel's options.

In an ideal world they could have coordinated with the Turkish government to inspect and supervise the loading of the cargo. Coordinated a Naval escort, preferably Turkish, for the flotilla. The volunteers could have flown from Turkey to Egypt or Israel clearing customs and whatever procedures are necessary to enter Gaza, and then meet with the ships at the docks or off the coast.

Such a process could have reasonably allayed Israel’s security concerns, and still enable the flotilla engage in it humanitarian objective. Whether the flotilla organizers would have gone for all this, or if this is even feasible, I don’t know.

Perhaps the security and humanitarian issue on both sides are moot, and it really comes down to Israel asserting its authority and control vs. the flotilla defying that authority and control? In such a case, looking for a non-zero sum solution is a fool’s errand.

[Rex Brynen]

The flotilla was clearly a PR exercise--no surprise there. And the Israelis blew it.

However, the real issue here is the current blockade of Gaza, which is counterproductive: the restrictions are capricious, and most goods that are prohibited have nothing to do with their strategic potential; it allows Hamas to divert blame for its own shortcomings; and it has resulted in a massive tunnel industry (including not only the tunnels under the border, but smuggling chains reaching across the Sinai, throughout Egypt, and into Sudan, Yemen, and elsewhere).

The net result is that it has become easier to smuggle weapons into Gaza than it was before the current draconian restrictions on civilian goods were introduced. I had dinner with a tunnel operator (and former weapons smuggler) in Gaza in January, who noted that while he used to get $5000 a container in the old days for bringing things under the border, he now only gets $50 because of the proliferation of tunnels. Indeed, some days of the month (when the Ramallah PA pays Gaza salaries) he earns more money driving a taxi.

Don't assume either that there is much sophisticated strategic thinking that goes into the restrictions, either: they're driven by domestic Israeli politics, bureaucratic process, inertia, and even capricious whim.

(image below: The Economist)
http://media.economist.com/images/na/2010w23/201023NAC266B.jpg

[serviceman]

Again it has happened reports of Isreali's attack on ships look at photos of ships all islamic flags more outside interfernce in Palestine matters and all Arabs people on board ships taking humanitarian aid for Gaza in other words provoking Isreal to retaliate

[Entropy]

Call me crazy, but who was the genius that thought fast-roping a few guys with paintball guns into an angry mob was a good idea?


IMHO they appear to have done most things right, they have clearly captured most of the incident on reasonable quality sound and audio recordings which gives them the means to fight the alternative narrative put forward by Hamas and the like.

Actually, the video just demonstrates how poorly planned this whole operation was.

[JJackson]

Yes it was a PR stunt to highlight the iniquity of the Gaza blockade.

Israels position is indefensible with regard to Gaza and there was no way to prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid to the camp without highlighting what is going on there. Allow it in and the world see what you are doing, stop it and you look like monsters either way. If you do not wish to look like monsters then do not blockade Gaza, there are limits to what you can spin as acceptable. While Israel may have some success at home, and in the US, I do not think there is another country in the world who's people are buying it anymore. While sorry for the families of those murdered I hope it will have some effect on US public opinion so the US government stop protecting Israel when it does go on one of its killing sprees. Stop the military aid, stop the security council sanctions, transfer the sanctions package against Iran to Israel and then restart the ME peace talks.
One state solution: secular, democratic with protections for the minority religious groupings like Jews and Christians.
Welcome to the new world order.

PS Rex - nice post at FP on the tunnels. For those of you that missed it
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/16/gazas_tragically_peculiar_economy

[Adam L]

I think this is my first post in almost six months. It's a relief that I finally have the time to dedicate some time to SWJ once again.


Call me crazy, but who was the genius that thought fast-roping a few guys with paintball guns into an angry mob was a good idea?

Actually, the video just demonstrates how poorly planned this whole operation was.

If they stormed the ship with a 100 commandos and controlled the situation they probably would have been able to reduce casualties for both sides, but they certainly would have looked like the aggressors. That's where you always get screwed conducting this type of operation. If you do your job and either quickly neutralize all weapons and resistance or simply scare them into submission with overwhelming dominance you look bad. In this case they have a clear case that their men were attacked and that the ships passengers wer violent. Even though there may be 8 or 10 killed, this position is probably easier to defend than 100 apparently peaceful people bruised from batons.

Adam L

[slapout9]

Even though there may be 8 or 10 killed, this position is probably easier to defend than 100 apparently peaceful people bruised from batons.

Adam L

It didn't help matters that the ship was in International waters either, at that point I don't think Israel had a legal right to do anything, which certainly cast them in the role of the aggressor. May not have made any difference in the end, but they would (Israel) had a much stronger case if they were clearly in Israeli territorial waters.

[Rex Brynen]

It didn't help matters that the ship was in International waters either, at that point I don't think Israel had a legal right to do anything, which certainly cast them in the role of the aggressor. May not have made any difference in the end, but they would (Israel) had a much stronger case if they were clearly in Israeli territorial waters.

It's my reading of international law is that states can insist on port inspection of cargos on neutral ships destined for a blockaded port, and board ships (or worse) that fail to comply, even in international waters. You'll find a summary of the relevant laws of war in the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/section_ihl_naval_warfare), on the ICRC website. According to that summary:


98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

...

118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.



Then again, neutrals aren't explicitly required to be cooperative either, so perhaps there's nothing technically illegal about whacking the boarders with axe handles!

The law does require, however, that a blockade not have as its primary target the civilian population:


102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

A broader argument can also be made that the primary purpose of the Israeli blockade of Gaza is collective punishment of the civilian population, which would violate IHL.

The lawyers can no doubt add additional layers of complexity :D

[Sergeant T]

Is apparently on the way (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177134). How does Israel stop this without digging themselves into a deeper PR hole? Disabling the boats isn't a very good option unless its in Israeli territorial waters and comes with a guarantee that passengers won't be harmed in the process. Looks like a Kobayashi Maru.

[Rex Brynen]

Looks like a Kobayashi Maru.

In which case, as any Star Trek fan knows, you reprogram the simulation.

In this case, there needs to be a fundamental rethink of the economic blockade of Gaza. Israel is probably incapable of taking the visible lead in this, both for domestic political reasons and for fear of "rewarding" Hamas.

The Ramallah-based PA, however, could broker new arrangements, with US and EU support and encouragement, and the EU or UN playing a role in facilitation of commercial border-crossing operations. The credit then goes to the PA and not Hamas. Israel and Egypt would find themselves no longer hoisted by their own petard--and both can sell their flexibility as the product of dealing with Palestinian moderates. Finally, the population of Gaza can enjoy a more normal life.

Footnote: the US tried this before, with the November 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access (http://www.ochaopt.org/documents/AMA_The_Passages_Technical_Elaboration.pdf) (brokered personally by then Sec of State Rice). It was never properly implemented (http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AMA_OneYearOn.pdf), and subsequently collapsed with Hamas' electoral victory and later take-over of Gaza....

[slapout9]

It's my reading of international law is that states can insist on port inspection of cargos on neutral ships destined for a blockaded port, and board ships (or worse) that fail to comply, even in international waters.

Hi Rex, your reading is undoubtedly correct but Israel's real problem is the perception created by 30 second TV news videos. It's like the Vietnam war protesters that put flowers in rifle barrels of the soldiers who were posted to maintain crowd control, difficult problem because the soldiers have the legal high ground but the civilians are perceived to have the moral high ground.

Flower Power!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_power

[Ron Humphrey]

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but--
--let's see there is a hostage state(GAZA) note reports that even though the
Egyptians opened the doors Hamas won't let anyone leave.
--The Blockade is an untenable long term solution, but if they don't Hamas does
resupply and does continue to shoot rockets sooo what should they do

I think I like Rex's PA deal but is that even doable considering the parties that would have to agree to fulfill it and the umm(diverse) opinions on the situation as a whole?

I guess the main question I have is why'd the Turks let this particular group run a flotilla since you can be darn sure they were well aware the intent. And even more importantly if they'll allow something like that is this whole Turkey/Iran Nuclear exchange even worth considering.

I don't disagree with anyone on how this has played out in narrative terms for Israel but seriously what are the alternatives if the only ones supposed to play by the rules are them while everyone else does whatever they want?

[William F. Owen]

Not my intention to comment here, (even in response to those who wish harm upon my people and that surface only in relationship to this issue) but I will make an exception to hand it to Rex Brynen for solid points. I mostly agree with what he says.

The reason I can generally agree with Rex, is that I do not actually agree with the blockade. I absolutely understand it, but I do not see it as an effective instrument of policy - which it clearly is not.

[Tukhachevskii]

Flotilla Attack the Deadly Symptom of a Failed Policy (http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/publication-type/media-releases/2010/flotilla-attack-the-deadly-symptom-of-a-failed-policy.aspx)


...the incident is an indictment of a much broader policy toward Gaza for which Israel does not bear sole responsibility...

International condemnation and calls for an inquiry will come easily, but many who will issue them must acknowledge their own role in the deplorable treatment of Gaza that formed the backdrop to today's events. the policy of isolating Gaza, seeking to turn its population agauinst Hamas, and endorsing a "West Bank first" approach was not an exclusively Israeli one.[...]

[...]...opening the humantarian tap is not an approapriate answer to a policy whose fundamental premise is morally callous and politically counter-productive. Instead, Gaza should be open to normal traffic with adequate international end-use monitoring.
If anything, recent events should result, in time, to an international monitoring regime which should allay Israeli security concerns whilst ensuring that appropriate humanitarian aid reaches Gaza without it being "hijacked" by "undesirable" elements. What amazes me is the turn-about in Turko-Israeli affairs (understandible sine the Justice Party came to power, but the rapidity of that deterioration is striking). Also, the role of Cyprus, long a "hive of scum and villanny" realy needs to be brought into greater relief.

[Schmedlap]

The reason I can generally agree with Rex, is that I do not actually agree with the blockade. I absolutely understand it, but I do not see it as an effective instrument of policy - which it clearly is not.

I think the blockade is poorly implemented, for reasons that Rex points out (the arbitrary nature of the specific restrictions), but the concept of "A" blockade seems sound to me. In particular, it seems like a continued blockade would serve a useful purpose for Israel. What I am thinking of, specifically, was articulated well by Galrahn at Information Dissemination (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/06/more-thoughts-on-gaza-flotilla.html) (below). What do you think?


... there is a cynical alternative that does merit mentioning. It has been suggested that further isolation of Israel by the United States would give greater flexibility to Israel for undertaking unilateral military action by Israel against Iran. That isolation would need to be more than just the NPT discussions that force Israel to disclose their nuclear arsenal (http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/1/headlines/npt_signatories_call_on_israel_to_open_nuclear_sit es), and more than just a diplomatic disagreement regarding the use of UN sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. This event would seem to be in line with creating additional political separation between Israel and the US needed for Israel to act unilaterally. Time will tell, but a brute force response to the second flotilla could easily give President Obama the flexibility he needs to create additional political separation from Israel on the US end.

I'm not really a subscriber of this point of view, but I do agree further political separation between Israel and the US right now would give Israel more flexibility to unilaterally attack Iran, and as the Danger Room article notes - Israel went into this flotilla operation understanding the infowar unfolding. Israel never plays expecting to lose something for nothing, suggesting something bigger may be at work here.

I am cynical enough to lend this more weight than Galrahn does.

[Rex Brynen]

While I accept that the state of US-Israeli relations plays into the extent to which the US constrains a possible Israeli strike against Iran, there are many other reasons which potentially limit this option on the Israeli side:

1) What does Israel think it knows about the Iranian nuclear program? What might it have missed, and how important are those elements? The issue of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns is particularly important here.

2) How effective might a strike be against known targets? What would be the anticipated consequences of US non-cooperation (and hence potential unfriendly overflight of US allies--Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey)?

3) What effects would a strike have on Iranian behaviour: would it deter them from weapons development, or lead them to devote much more resources to it (so as to gain the ability to deter future strikes)?

4) What would be the other immediate and longer term consequences of a strike?

This isn't to say that the Israelis won't strike. It is to say, however, that IMHO these issues far outweigh anything that arises specifically from the israeli-Palestinian conflict.

[William F. Owen]

I think the blockade is poorly implemented, for reasons that Rex points out (the arbitrary nature of the specific restrictions), but the concept of "A" blockade seems sound to me. In particular, it seems like a continued blockade would serve a useful purpose for Israel.

Schemdlap mate. Forgive me, but I'm not going comment on "internet speculation."

....but as a point of strategy, "THE" blockade does not, IMO, usefully advance the policy. Therefore why do it?
If I may, I'll leave it at that.

[Rex Brynen]

....but as a point of strategy, "THE" blockade does not, IMO, usefully advance the policy. Therefore why do it?
If I may, I'll leave it at that.

As I mentioned in a posting on Gaza that I made earlier in the year (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=90745&postcount=177), I think it was best said by Winnie-the-Pooh:

"I don't see much sense in that," said Rabbit.

"No," said Pooh humbly, "there isn't. But there was going to be when I began it. It's just that something happened to it along the way."

[slapout9]

Is what I find strange is that Martin Van Creveld lives there and could tell them exactly what they need to do.

Link to Zenpundit on how Israel doesn't understand 4GW. Now I am not crazy about the designation of 4GW because it dosen't truly describe what is happening but the main points Van Creveld makes are important, in this case the MORE force you use the more you will loose.
http://zenpundit.com/

[Vahid]

While I accept that the state of US-Israeli relations plays into the extent to which the US constrains a possible Israeli strike against Iran, there are many other reasons which potentially limit this option on the Israeli side:

1) What does Israel think it knows about the Iranian nuclear program? What might it have missed, and how important are those elements? The issue of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns is particularly important here.

2) How effective might a strike be against known targets? What would be the anticipated consequences of US non-cooperation (and hence potential unfriendly overflight of US allies--Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey)?

3) What effects would a strike have on Iranian behaviour: would it deter them from weapons development, or lead them to devote much more resources to it (so as to gain the ability to deter future strikes)?

4) What would be the other immediate and longer term consequences of a strike?

This isn't to say that the Israelis won't strike. It is to say, however, that IMHO these issues far outweigh anything that arises specifically from the israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Interesting set of questions. In my humble opinion, it is quite unequivocal that the ongoing rapprochement between Iran and Turkey (the two neighbours whose relations used to be characterised as a relationship of ''tolerance'', will undoubtedly gain momentum. What I have found to be very noteworthy (as a side note) is that the proponents of a religious rule in both polities have also used this attack to silence the seculars (their argument being that the seculars are not vocal enough to condemn the outrage of Mavi Marmara. Hence, from a socio-political perspective, while the exponents of militant Islam have been quick to exploit the incident, it can have retrograde effects as far as democratisation in the Middle East is concerned.

Furthermore, the enormity of ythe incident, as far as I have been able to follow from media outlets, can also dethrone the issue of Iran's nuclear problem at the UN. In fact, I am not sure to what extent this news is reliable, but the following news item (from the Israeli media) hints at such a likelihood:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898304,00.html

The portentious question is if ever the motion regains importance, to what extent its adoption will prove less controversial.

Finally, I find the possibility of an Israeli attack against Iran to be far-fetched. With Turkey being in ruled by the AKP (which has considerably incapacitated the army apparatus, the guarants of secularism), Turkey's reaction would be, from my point of view, hard to digest for Israel in a Middle East that is growing increasingly hostile to its skulduggery in the region

[Sergeant T]

in this case the MORE force you use the more you will loose

The problem is that at some point you actually have to use force or accept whatever behavior the opponent engages in. My first thought upon viewing the IDF video was that if this incident were replicated in the U.S., with the Israelis being police officers, the shooting would have been justified. (Jury nullification notwithstanding.) It would be PR hell for all involved, but justified.

Without entering into the right/wrong/stupid/justified tug-of-war about the blockade, its worth noting that Israel began it for a reason. (Love Rex's Winnie-the-Pooh reference to describe it.) At the time it seemed worth the effort as an avenue to degrade the political control of a universally acknowledged terrorist organization. That fact is utterly lost in the narrative being placed before the world WRT to this incident. I don't know how you win in a 4G environment when your opponent's population, and for that matter the entire region, is predisposed to believe the worst about you.

Final thought. Does it sound too conspiracy theorist to point out that this happened right before Netanyahu was supposed to meet with the president? I'm not going Cynthia McKinney here, just wondering if the timing has any relation.

[slapout9]

The problem is that at some point you actually have to use force or accept whatever behavior the opponent engages in. My first thought upon viewing the IDF video was that if this incident were replicated in the U.S., with the Israelis being police officers, the shooting would have been justified. (Jury nullification notwithstanding.) It would be PR hell for all involved, but justified.


That is really the point. It's not about no force but less force. The whole operation could have been handled better as a law Enforcement operation carried out by Law Enforcement agencies (coast guard/border patrol as USA examples)than military forces. Plus Cops carry TASERS....works pretty good against people with clubs, at least a lot better than paint ball guns!!!:eek:

[William F. Owen]

Is what I find strange is that Martin Van Creveld lives there and could tell them exactly what they need to do.

Link to Zenpundit on how Israel doesn't understand 4GW. Now I am not crazy about the designation of 4GW because it dosen't truly describe what is happening but the main points Van Creveld makes are important, in this case the MORE force you use the more you will loose.
http://zenpundit.com/
I think my contribution may be useful here.

I have a lot of respect for Martin as a military historian but his problem (like many) is that he does not understand (or articulate well) the dynamic between Policy and Strategy.
What I have painfully come to realise that very few other Israelis do either! (...and I see nothing coming out of the US which is an improvement).

a.) Policy is a Political objective - nothing more.
b.) Strategy is the method by which you seek to set forth that objective. Ends, Ways and Means, all of which have to be effectively linked.
c.) Strategy has to be set forth using tactics. if it cannot be done tactically the strategy will fail.

Given we all know this, I can never understand where the confusion creeps in.

If you apply FORCE in a way that does not support the POLICY, then you undermine the policy - which is why you have ROE, for example. Ghandi understood this and Clausewitz understood it.

....so yes, apply the wrong force for the wrong reason is dumb. Nothing to do with 4GW.

[John T. Fishel]

The only thing I would add is that operations must support strategy and tactics support operations.

I, too, loved Rex's Winnie the Pooh quote and nominate it for the SWJ quote of the day.

Cheers

JohnT

[J Wolfsberger]

...I, too, loved Rex's Winnie the Pooh quote and nominate it for the SWJ quote of the day.


Second the nomination.

[Kiwigrunt]

Second the nomination.

Third the nomination. Another one that worked its way onto my quotes list.:)

[JJackson]

Wilf I assume you mean me as everyone else, at least up until I posted, was very much on the Israeli side of the debate.

(even in response to those who wish harm upon my people and that surface only in relationship to this issue)
I am not single issue but while I read much here I post little as it is either military or legal – and outside my experience – or I am in broad agreement and have no point to argue. The exceptions are on Iranian and Israeli policy where this site tends, on average, be a lot closer the US FP position than I am comfortable with and which I view as propaganda and not reality based.
I mean no harm to you or your people, by which I assume you mean Israelis, nor do I see them suffering greatly. I wish the same could be said for the Palestinians who are suffering as a result of Israeli policy, strategy and tactics.
I know you and I are never going to see eye-to-eye on Israel or Iran and have been around the block over these issues many times before. The strange thing is I suspect you see my position as being on the opposite side to yours while I think of myself as occupying the neutral ground between the Arab and Israeli positions and in line with most of the world who are not in either the Zionist (Israel, US, UK etc) or Arab blocks (Iran, Syria, Arab states etc). The first block seem to want, and are achieving by degrees, total control over the land and its resources and the later want to be in that position and a return to pre 1948 Middle East.
On the specifics of this last case I think the legal points are moot in that International law, such as it is, is of use to the powerful in justifying those of their actions they can bend it to fit but is otherwise ignored, unless someone more powerful wishes to apply it. Debating who used excessive force the boarders, or repellers of boarders, on a ship off the Gaza coast seems a bit like focusing on whether the arsonist bought the book of matches or stole it. While 1.5 million people are locked up in Gaza with no employment, or prospect there of, a sub Saharan GDP and no means of escape or prospect of improvement all of which is contrary to UN resolutions and international law – if you believe in such things – the legality of any actions taken to perpetuate this status quo are moot.
The bottom line is that Israelis position is morally indefensible re Gaza, the creeping appropriation of the West Bank, and much else beside, and those countries that are apologists – like mine – should hang their heads in shame.

The report (linked to by Rex in post #13) on AMA compliance nicely illustrates the problems of getting stuff into Gaza, and before Hamas took over.

The Winnie the Pooh quote is great and seems applicable to most FP positions. There may have been some logic to them once upon a time but now they survive on inertia, propaganda and an inability to admit we may have been wrong.

[slapout9]

I think my contribution may be useful here.

I have a lot of respect for Martin as a military historian but his problem (like many) is that he does not understand (or articulate well) the dynamic between Policy and Strategy.
What I have painfully come to realise that very few other Israelis do either! (...and I see nothing coming out of the US which is an improvement).

a.) Policy is a Political objective - nothing more.
b.) Strategy is the method by which you seek to set forth that objective. Ends, Ways and Means, all of which have to be effectively linked.
c.) Strategy has to be set forth using tactics. if it cannot be done tactically the strategy will fail.

Given we all know this, I can never understand where the confusion creeps in.

If you apply FORCE in a way that does not support the POLICY, then you undermine the policy - which is why you have ROE, for example. Ghandi understood this and Clausewitz understood it.

....so yes, apply the wrong force for the wrong reason is dumb. Nothing to do with 4GW.

I think this is useful....it's all SBW and as I have been saying for some time... here is the code. "They use people as soldiers that don't look like soldiers,they use things as weapons that don't look like weapons and they use places as battlefields that don't look like battlefields." You will see that pattern repeated over and over again because Israel has never developed an effective response against it and until they realize that and realize that they are being attacked as a "system" they may not ever develop one.

[Sergeant T]

The first of many narratives that will emerge. (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/american-killed-gaza-aid-flotilla/story?id=10814848)


"They [Israeli commandos] were trying to land on the boat. So obviously there was this hand-to-hand combat and during that process the people on the boat were basically able to disarm some of the soldiers because they did have guns with them," Burney told Reuters. "So they basically took the guns away from them and took the cartridges out and threw them away."

Asked if anyone had used the guns against the Israeli commandos, Burney said, "No, not at all."

"Yes, we took their guns. It would be self defence even if we fired their guns," Bulent Yildirim, chairman of the IHH, said.

"We told our friends on board we will die, become martyrs, but never let us be shown... as the ones who used guns," he said, adding that people shouted that the weapons should not be used.

"By this decision, our friends accepted death, and we threw all the guns we took from them into the sea," Yildirim said.

We didn't do anything, but if we did it would justified.



"Turkey will never forget such an attack on its ships and its people in international waters. Turkey's ties with Israel will never be the same again," Turkish President Abdullah Gul told a news conference. "Israel made one of the greatest mistakes in its history. It will see in time what a huge mistake it made," he said.

[Seabee]

Just my 2 cents worth...

[Seabee]

Just for my understanding, who can decide who gets blockaded?

i.e. Can Cuba "Blockade" the USA and then claim that they have the right to search any ship entering US coastal waters?

Surely there is an international authority who decides if blockades are legal or enforceable?

[Seabee]

Not my intention to comment here, (even in response to those who wish harm upon my people and that surface only in relationship to this issue) .

Well, I dont count myself as one of "those"... BUT...

There is more to the argument than supporting the Israeli right to a homeland or supporting the "Arabs"..

having given a bit of thought to this (not taking sides, but just the general "can't the folks down South find a solution and stop bothering the rest of the world" kinda guy) I have come to the conclusion that a lot of what "those" people feel is simple irritation.

As an athiest, and since I was a kid, a continent hopper, I have no time for land claims based on any form of religion and who occupied it 2000 years ago. It irritates the hell out of me when such things happen and when other countries are dragged into it.

The "right" to occupation and "right to homelands"... by either side is simply not my problem.

If someone wants to live somewhere, it should be based on their ability to support themselves, by themselves.

On a small level...

I like a certain river bank, and build a hut there with my wife and kid. I ignore the fact that crocodiles live on the bank. Every 2 weeks we are attacked by crocs... and every week I have to call the cops who have to come and save my butt... at some point the cops (and right they are) are going to get pssed. They are going to go "sure, you have the "Right" to live there... but lets get serious dude... we are all getting irritated by having to work overtime to save your ass because you are to stubborn to move to a bank without crocs..."

Now, whether my god gave me the river bank, or the crocs god igave it to them, whether I found the hut first or the crocs did... the cops dont care... they calculate up the trouble I am causing, and if they are clever, at some stage will ignore the phone and let me and the crocs fight it out, best man wins.

Sigh.....

Just settle it and let FIFA dominate the web for a bit.....

[Hacksaw]

While I can get behind the quote of the day nomination...

My favorite is still...

"I don't think that means what you think that means" Indigo Montoya

[Tukhachevskii]

In an article in the Spectator, Flotilla Follies (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6055693/flotilla-follies.thtml), Daniel Korski states that ...

Two groups in the Conservative party that have worried most about Con-Lib government are the social conservatives and the neo-conservatives. The latter have been particularly worried about UK relations with Israel. There is a real concern in parts of the Conservatives Party that three factors would come together to sour Anglo-Israeli relations: what the neo-conservatives see as the Foreign Office’s knee-jerk Arabism, the presence of many supposed Arabists in Cameron-Hague’s teams, and the anti-Israel bias exhibited by many leading Liberal Democrats. Whatever the truth of these allegations, they are held with considerable fervour.

But Nick Clegg’s reaction to the conflict shows that the Lib Dem leader is both holding to the middle-of-the-road line put out by the Foreign Secretary and shedding the anti-Israel sentiment of old. The deputy Prime Minister, who campaigned against the Gaza blockade before joining the coalition government, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme Israel had "every right" to protect its people from terrorist threats. His addition -- to ask if it was “in Israel's long-term security interest to have so many people confined in that way” -- is hardly radical. David Cameron himself called the raid on the Gaza aid flotilla "completely unacceptable" and deplored the loss of life.

[Rex Brynen]

Just my 2 cents worth...

And a priceless 2 cents they are! :D

[John T. Fishel]

The traditional IL on naval blockades is:
1. It is an act of war.
2. It is declared by one of the warring parties.
3. It is lawful as long as it can be enforced.
4. It can be enforced by whatever means are ncessary - traditionally, that was seizing a blockade runner, imprisoning its crew, and seizing its its cargo, or blowing it out of the water.:cool:

Cheers

JohnT

[Kiwigrunt]

While I can get behind the quote of the day nomination...

My favorite is still...

"I don't think that means what you think that means" Indigo Montoya

A bit like this one:


I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." (Alan Greenspan)

[davidbfpo]

I read some of the US daily press and sometimes wonder at the imbalance towards Israel. These two articles are in marked contrast, first the "usual" approach:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012025784_krauthammer04.html

Then a condemnation of the Israeli action:http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0604-piracy-20100604,0,3432004,full.story

[jmm99]

The "divided opinion" is not surprising if you happen to know of the two authors: for Israel refuses to commit suicide (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012025784_krauthammer04.html) - Charles Krauthammer Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer); and of Piracy on the high seas (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0604-piracy-20100604,0,3432004,full.story) - Bill Press Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Press).

It is fair to call Charles a conservative (formerly a Jimmy Carter liberal) and Bill a liberal. They are often Point and Counterpoint.

I expect there is a division of opinion in the American Diaspora about the wisdom of the blockade, but have no polling data to back it up. Cf., see this, In its hour of need, Israel was let down by Diaspora (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/anshel-pfeffer-in-its-hour-of-need-israel-was-let-down-by-diaspora-1.294126), in 5 Jun 2009 Ha'aretz.

That article included an interesting comment:


On Monday evening, in one of those moments of tired, off-the-record frankness, an IDF colonel said to me, "Come on Anshel, we all know what the problem was here. This was a policing operation, not something for a real army."

Still, the existence of a blockade requires the pre-existence of a armed conflict (which Israel has declared as its legal basis for the blockade). So, the blockade is not a law enforcement operation; although I suppose one might elect to use law enforcement tactics in any given situation.

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

still, the existence of a blockade requires the pre-existence of a armed conflict (which Israel has declared as its legal basis for the blockade). So, the blockade is not a law enforcement operation; although I suppose one might elect to use law enforcement tactics in any given situation.

Regards

Mike

That is why I think they would do better using a Coast Guard/Border Patrol type LE operation. It deescalates the situation to an LE operation against some unruly non-state actors instead of escalating to a Military Blockade which has state vs. state War making operation.

[Seabee]

2. It is declared by one of the warring parties.
3. It is lawful as long as it can be enforced.
4. It can be enforced by whatever means are ncessary - traditionally, that was seizing a blockade runner, imprisoning its crew, and seizing its its cargo, or blowing it out of the water.:cool:

Cheers

JohnT

Hi,

that still leaves a gap in my understanding. Lawful to who?

What happens if country A and country B are at war.

Country A announces it is blockading country B.

I assume there is no international law that says countries C to Z have to play along?

i.e. if country G decides to sail to country B... its not just on the say-so of country A that he is not allowed to?

The blockade is only as strong as Country A's ability to enforce it.

Now, if country A is North korea, and Country B is South Korea... then countries C-Z can tell country A to go screw itself, and country A ends up looking silly.

Taking that thought further... if Israel's blockade of Gaza is a pure Israeli descision, are other countries required by international law to respect it? Or is the most they can fear the wrath of Israel?

In fact, boarding a boat on open sea may get you off in an Israeli court (is after all their blockade), but for any country who thinks the Israeli Blockade is illegal... the Israeli Commandos were no better than Somali Pirates... (Who could probably have taken the ships with fewer losses).


If the Irish ship just captured was in open water.... would ireland have a case against israel in a court of law?

[John T. Fishel]

JMM should, perhaps, weigh in here.

My understanding of IL is that it is mostly customary or treaty driven. The law on blockade that I described as traditional is mostly customary. That said, in this case Isreal and Egypt are at war with Hamas. they have declared a blockade of Gaza. The Israeli Navy is enforcing the blockade. Other states and their merchant ships may choose to ignore the blockade or attempt to run it. If enough are successful, then the international community refuses to recognize the blockade and it is "illegal." If, however, most blockade runners are stopped (taken as prizes, taken into port, sunk) then the blockade is upheld.
As to your question about hauling Israel into court. As a state and member of the UN, the only court with jurisdiction, is the International court of Justice (ICJ) but only if Israel agrees that it has jurisdiction - which she doesn't. As for the International Criminal Court (ICC) neither Israel nor the US are parties to the treaty so it has no jurisdiction even if it claims such.
The only international organ that could lawfully break the blockade is the UN Security Council which could pass a resolution (if one of the P5 didn't veto it and 9 members voted for it) that would authorize the navies of any state to break the blockade. Otherwise, naval efforts to break the blockade are acts of war against the blockaders (Israel and Egypt). That is one reason why the Turkish navy did not escort the flotilla.

Cheers

JohnT

[Rex Brynen]

The NYT's Lede column (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/israelis-explain-and-mock-flotilla-clash/?ref=world) yesterday has a piece which (quite apart from the link to a rather well-done pro-raid satirical video), contains some rather important pieces of the puzzle that haven't been well reported yet in the media frenzy around the raid:


The commander interviewed by The Post said that the ship’s passengers did not react as he would have expected to the initial barrage of warning shots and stun grenades. His interpretation of this was that the group was laying an ambush:

T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck. “They didn’t even flinch,” he said. “Regular people would move.”

Then again, it also seems plausible that the passengers on the ship, hearing and seeing shots being fired and grenades being thrown from the dark sky above, might not have understood that they were not being attacked with deadly force before the commandos landed on the ship’s deck. If the early part of the Israeli raid was an effort to stun the passengers, it might have had the opposite effect, of making them enraged at a perceived attack.

This possible misunderstanding about what sort of weaponry the Israelis were using might also have been bolstered by the paintball guns the commandos carried with them, which, in the chaotic, pre-dawn encounter could easily have been mistaken for real rifles.

Earlier in the week, a military expert who looked at the available footage of the raid told Britain’s Channel 4 News that even shots fired by a paint-pellet gun would stun and confuse people struck by them. In hindsight, perhaps confusing a large group of activists already enraged at Israel’s military blockade of Gaza by firing shots of any kind in their direction in the dark was a recipe for disaster.

The Turkish autopsies (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6536MF20100604) apparent show that while most of the dead received several hits from 9mm, one was hit in the head and killed by what may have been a crowd dispersal weapon of some sort:


He said all but one of the bullets retrieved from the bodies came from 9mm rounds. Of the other round, Ince said: "It was the first time we have seen this kind of material used in firearms. It was just a container including many types of pellets usually used in shotguns. It penetrated the head region in the temple and we found it intact in the brain."

There are several "less lethal" ammunitions in regular IDF use that could conceivably fit that description (RRNM, Roma GG, MA/RA 88), especially if it were fired at close range and/or the submunitions failed to deploy as intended.

All just speculation, of course--it is also possible that the weapon was fired in the chaos of the melee on the deck of the ship. However, it would indeed be a tragic irony if one of the "less lethal" initial warning shots from the air not only proved fatal, but also exacerbated the subsequent violence.

[tequila]

I also read an article in Zaman where several Turkish activists claimed that Israel was firing on them with live ammunition before the commandos dropped on board. In the confusion and excitement I can easily see how being fired on with less-lethal rounds from the air could be mistaken for an actual attack.

'Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire)'

The Israeli commander seems to verify that the Israelis were firing warning shots and stun grenades before they came aboard.

[Fuchs]

The traditional IL on naval blockades is:
1. It is an act of war.
2. It is declared by one of the warring parties.
3. It is lawful as long as it can be enforced.
4. It can be enforced by whatever means are ncessary - traditionally, that was seizing a blockade runner, imprisoning its crew, and seizing its its cargo, or blowing it out of the water.:cool:

(1) and (2) cannot be true any more because the UN authorized/declared naval blockades that were no act of war, such as against Yugoslavia (arms only IIRC).
(3) makes no sense whatsoever, do you have a source to back it up?
(4) Maybe it can, but it's not allowed to use whatever means are necessary. See unrestricted sub warfare and certain forms of excessive violence against civilians.

[jmm99]

The basic legality of the Gaza blockade from Israel's standpoint is argued (pretty well in my view) by Eric Posner (University of Chicago Law School), The Gaza Blockade and International Law - Israel's position is reasonable and backed by precedent (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575284210429984110.html) (4 Jun 2010). As JTF correctly points out, no international court is likely to hear the case (and if either the ICJ or ICC got a hold on the case, we might see a decision in a decade or so). The UNSC will also not render any sort of consensus decision.

But, the basic wisdom of Israel's actions can also be questioned (again pretty well in my view) by Nicholas D. Kristof (NYT columnist), Saving Israel From Itself (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03kristof.html) (2 Jun 2010), saying as his lede:


When reports first circulated on Twitter of a deadly attack by Israeli commandos on the Gaza flotilla, I didn’t forward them because they seemed implausible. I thought: Israel wouldn’t be so obtuse as to use lethal force on self-described peace activists in international waters with scores of reporters watching.

(emphasis by Kristof). That brings to mind Bob Jones' reference in another thread to his friend who found that the use of violence against non-violent insurgencies has been overwhelmingly unsuccessful - at least in democratic and quasi-democratic societies.

As to the general law of blockades, we do have the San Remo Manual, correctly cited by Rex as the ICRC standard. However, that manual is heavily based on the 1977 Additional Protocols to the 1949 GCs, and on "customary international humanitarian law" which comes from the same milieu. Now as to various parties: Israel and Turkey have not ratified the APs; whereas Egypt and Ireland have. The legal position of Palestine is obscure.

Generally, see Wiki - Blockade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade) and two 1911 Enc. Brit. articles, Blockade (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Blockade) and Pacific Blockade (http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Pacific_Blockade) - which show that many points are available to argue the pros and cons of any blockade.

I'd suggest that another way a blockade could be legally broken is if there happens to be a 600 lb gorilla, extremely committed to Freedom of the Seas, Rights of Innocent Passage and an Open Door Policy, which simply says that our flagged vessels will be escorted through by our warships - and we will defend ourselves. If the smaller primate backs off, the blockade has ceased to be effective. That is not my policy recommendation in this case.

Regards

Mike

[Rex Brynen]

For those interesting in detailed data on the Gaza embargo, the best source are the bimonthly reports produced by PalTrade and the World Bank, which you'll find here (http://www.wordldbank.org/we), along with a great deal of other economic data.

The most recent monitoring report on the World Bank website at the moment (http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWESTBANKGAZA/Resources/Dec09-Jan2010.pdf) shows that, in January 2010, some 1,933 trucks entered Gaza to supply the 1.6 million people there. This compares to an average of 10,400 per month prior to the current, draconian restrictions being put in place in early 2007.

In short, around 8,400 trucks less than the normal civilian/commercial needs of Gaza are currently entering each month. Some of this material is simply not getting in--that represents shortages, and decreased economic activity. Some of this is coming in via the tunnels, smuggled from Egypt.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that half of the shortfall is smuggled. This would be equivalent of 4,200 trucks of material entering Gaza (via the tunnels) with no Israeli inspection each month--compared to the old pre-embargo system where almost everything entering Gaza went through an Israeli crossing point, and hence was inspected. As I suggested earlier, the perverse effect of the blockade, therefore, has been to spur the growth of a massive smuggling industry (scores or hundreds of tunnels, thousands of workers) which has given Israel less ability to interdict contraband.

(On a side note, I would argue that Israel's pre-blockade restrictions were too draconian and wrong too, but that's another issue.)

[John T. Fishel]

fast roped right into it.:eek: Clearly, if Wilf thinks this was stupid it almost certainly was.

As to your 600 pound gorrilla point, Mike, "too right you are." But that is unlikely either for far too many reasons to bother with here.

And, in the "for what it's worth department" I've referred my AMU students to this thread as it is the most reasonable discussion of what actually happened or should have happened going.

cheers

JohnT

[slapout9]

The NYT's Lede column (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/israelis-explain-and-mock-flotilla-clash/?ref=world) yesterday has a piece which (quite apart from the link to a rather well-done pro-raid satirical video), contains some rather important pieces of the puzzle that haven't been well reported yet in the media frenzy around the raid:



The Turkish autopsies (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6536MF20100604) apparent show that while most of the dead received several hits from 9mm, one was hit in the head and killed by what may have been a crowd dispersal weapon of some sort:



There are several "less lethal" ammunitions in regular IDF use that could conceivably fit that description (RRNM, Roma GG, MA/RA 88), especially if it were fired at close range and/or the submunitions failed to deploy as intended.

All just speculation, of course--it is also possible that the weapon was fired in the chaos of the melee on the deck of the ship. However, it would indeed be a tragic irony if one of the "less lethal" initial warning shots from the air not only proved fatal, but also exacerbated the subsequent violence.

Anybody that knows anything about "Flash bangs" will be familiar with (or should be) the startle response.....freezing in place is NOT uncommon at all.

[Valin]

JMM should, perhaps, weigh in here.

My understanding of IL is that it is mostly customary or treaty driven. The law on blockade that I described as traditional is mostly customary. That said, in this case Isreal and Egypt are at war with Hamas. they have declared a blockade of Gaza. The Israeli Navy is enforcing the blockade. Other states and their merchant ships may choose to ignore the blockade or attempt to run it. If enough are successful, then the international community refuses to recognize the blockade and it is "illegal." If, however, most blockade runners are stopped (taken as prizes, taken into port, sunk) then the blockade is upheld.
As to your question about hauling Israel into court. As a state and member of the UN, the only court with jurisdiction, is the International court of Justice (ICJ) but only if Israel agrees that it has jurisdiction - which she doesn't. As for the International Criminal Court (ICC) neither Israel nor the US are parties to the treaty so it has no jurisdiction even if it claims such.
The only international organ that could lawfully break the blockade is the UN Security Council which could pass a resolution (if one of the P5 didn't veto it and 9 members voted for it) that would authorize the navies of any state to break the blockade. Otherwise, naval efforts to break the blockade are acts of war against the blockaders (Israel and Egypt). That is one reason why the Turkish navy did not escort the flotilla.

Cheers

JohnT


Just a quick note of thanks. You put it very well.

[jmm99]

currently running on our SWJ Blog Feed (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=99942#post99942); from Reuters, Q&A: Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal? (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602):


(Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.

What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose. .... (more in article)

What is legal is not necessarily wise.

Regards

Mike

[JJackson]

Must both parties be Nation States?
What is Gaza?
It is not a State, it is a bit of territory occupied by Israel and not yet fully subdued.
Liverpool gets a bit unruly sometimes (red Ken 'n all) can the Royal Navy blockade it?
And then there are the Scots you never can trust the SNP not to go for a rewrite on the Act of Union.

[jmm99]

I'd be remiss to my maternal Finnish ancestry if I omitted reference to the International Law Association's (1998) Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality (http://www.vilp.de/Enpdf/e025.pdf).

Some of the more relevant principles (most all of the Helsinki Principles bear on this case to some extent):


5.1.2(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they 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, capture or diversion.

5.1.2(4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they:

(a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces;

(c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system;

(d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and

it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 Visit and search. As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade. Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.

5.3 Relief. A blockade may not be used to prevent the passage of relief consignments which has to be free according to the applicable rules of international humanitarian law, in particular those contained in Articles 23, 59 and 61 of the Fourth Geneva Convention or Articles 69 and 70 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions.

The Helsinki Principles (as also the San Remo Manual) are based in part on the 1977 Additional Protocols, not ratified by either Israel or Turnkey.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

Israel considers itself engaged in an armed conflict with Hamas (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48222), which occupies Gaza.

The Int Law status of "Palestine" itself is obscure.

See these Wikis for an overview:

List of states with limited recognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition)

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Palestinian_National_Auth ority)

Hamas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas)

The Gaza-Hamas situation with Israel is similar to the AQ-Taliban situation with the US (where Common Article 3 of the 1949 GCs is the controlling law). But, how another nation will view it depends on its own ratifications or not of the various post-1949 conventions, and its own policy on recognition of nation-states and diplomatic recognition of governments.

Regards

Mike

[Rex Brynen]

It seems to me that there is likely a difference between the legality of 1) the naval blockade, and 2) the legality of the blockade/embargo as a whole (which arguably comprises, in its present form, collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, and in its sweeping extent is disproportionate to any military advantage gained).

Some of this hinges on whether the Gaza is still considered "occupied territory." Israeli ground forces and settlers withdrew in 2005, but the IDF has full control of Gaza's air and sea space, most of its borders, and can enter the much of the area at will. The US, EU, UN, and ICRC continue to describe Gaza as "occupied territory" (which has clear legal implications under the 4th Geneva Convention). Israel argues that Gaza is a hostile, not occupied, territory.

Final note: Gaza has no seaport. It has a small fishing harbour/breakwater, and that's it (picture below, taken on my last visit).
http://paxsims.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/gazaport1.jpg

[jmm99]

Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (http://www.prio.no/upload/1117/doc/US%20Navy%20Commander's%20Handbook%201995.pdf) (1995), and its Annotated Supplement (http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Annotated_Supplement_to_the_Commanders_Handbook_Al l.pdf) (1997), covered the US view toward Neutrality in general (chap 7) and Blockades in particular (Section 7.7).

The Commander's Handbook was updated in July 2007 (same chap and section refs); and that update can be found at the Naval War College (MCWP 5-12.1 (http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/a9b8e92d-2c8d-4779-9925-0defea93325c/1-14M_(Jul_2007)_(NWP)) in Marine indexing). The 1997 Annotated Supplement has not been updated.

---------------------------
Perhaps, Rex, there is something to this:


from Rex
It seems to me that there is likely a difference between the legality of 1) the naval blockade, and 2) the legality of the blockade/embargo as a whole (which arguably comprises, in its present form, collective punishment of the civilian population of Gaza, and in its sweeping extent is disproportionate to any military advantage gained).

although I haven't thought enough about Gaza issues to pontificate.

Most all blockades, embargoes and sanctions are de facto "collective punishments" of the civilian populations at which they are aimed - regardless of their status de jure. They also do the most damage to the "least of us" - and the "Powers That Be" rarely suffer. Thus, I find these so called "less than war operations" to be often less humanitarian than outright military incursions.

As to "occupied" or not, our FM 27-10 (http://www.aschq.army.mil/supportingdocs/Fm27_10.pdf), The Law of Land Warfare, has these statements re: occupation:


351. Military Occupation

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. (HR, art. 42.)

and


355. Occupation as Question of Fact

Military occupation is a question of fact. It presupposes a hostile invasion, resisted or unresisted, as a result of which the invader has rendered the invaded government incapable of publicly exercising its authority, and that the invader has successfully substituted its own authority for that of the legitimate government in the territory invaded.

and (emphasis added by me)


360. Maintenance of Occupation

Occupation, to be effective, must be maintained. In case the occupant evacuates the district or is driven out by the enemy, the occupation ceases. It does not cease, however, if the occupant, after establishing its authority, moves forward against the enemy, leaving a smaller force to administer the affairs of the district. Nor does the existence of a rebellion or the activity of guerrilla or para-military units of itself cause the occupation to cease, provided the occupant could at any time it desired assume physical control of any part of the territory. If, however, the power of the occupant is effectively displaced for any length of time, its position towards the inhabitants is the same as before occupation.

361. Termination of Occupation

The law of belligerent occupation generally ceases to be applicable under the conditions set forth in paragraphs 353 [JMM Note: 353 is annexation of the occupied territory] and 360. However, with respect to the provisions of GC alone, Article 6 of that Convention provides:


In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention; 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

Protected persons whose release, repatriation or re-establishment may take place after such dates shall meanwhile continue to benefit by the present Convention. (GC, art. 6, 3d and 4th pars.)

Of course, reasonable persons can argue about questions of fact until the cows come home (or the horses come back to the beach). My own IMO is that Israel has a good argument for no occupation by Israel (and for occupation by Hamas) following the lines of FM 27-10.

Cheers

Mike

[davidbfpo]

From an Israeli source, with details on the activists from the IHH aboard the ship, photos of weapons and more. Yes some information gained from those detained and released.

Link: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e110.htm

[tequila]

The most interesting thing in that Israeli-sourced article to me is the emphasis on blaming Erdogan and the Turkish government. Seems to me like the Israeli-Turkish alliance is definitively over, and the Israeli right wing views Turkey as no different than Iran or Syria.

[JMA]

From an Israeli source, with details on the activists from the IHH aboard the ship, photos of weapons and more. Yes some information gained from those detained and released.

Link: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e110.htm

I thought the Israelis were more savvy than that. Man did they fall for that one. Wonder when then heads will start to roll?

[RJ]

Bottom line - The fast rope of 14 troops on to a boat that had at least 100 trained islam fanatics surrounded by 500 peace protesters was, with hindsight all over this comment, criminal. I watched the pipes swinging hard at the Israeli's even before they ade it to the deck.

The commanders who set this action up need to be courts martialed.

There were dozens of other options.

Just a thought! How many of the dead could have been killed by the trained muslims aboard, to raise the "Oh the Humanity" reflex. Acouple of western journalist who were covering the story from the boat went missing after the attack. Did they or their bodies ever surface?

The Turks and Iran are deeply in each others pockets on this one. The ambush reeks of a well planned attack that shows the incompetents of the Israeli planners and the rage of muslims defending themselves against Jewish attackers.

Someone said earlier that the pattern of attacks that are most effective is the unusual place using unusal wepons.

JMHO as well!

A group of International Maritime Law experts, including a very high ranking Canadian military leader are part of the group that will be studying this incident.

[Rex Brynen]

International Committee of the Red Cross
14-06-2010 News release 10/103

Gaza closure: not another year! (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/palestine-update-140610)


Geneva/Jerusalem (ICRC) - The hardship faced by Gaza's 1.5 million people cannot be addressed by providing humanitarian aid. The only sustainable solution is to lift the closure.

The serious incidents that took place on 31 May between Israeli forces and activists on a flotilla heading for Gaza once again put the spotlight on the acute hardship faced by the population in the Gaza Strip.

As the ICRC has stressed repeatedly, the dire situation in Gaza cannot be resolved by providing humanitarian aid. The closure imposed on the Gaza Strip is about to enter its fourth year, choking off any real possibility of economic development. Gazans continue to suffer from unemployment, poverty and warfare, while the quality of Gaza's health care system has reached an all-time low.

The whole of Gaza's civilian population is being punished for acts for which they bear no responsibility. The closure therefore constitutes a collective punishment imposed in clear violation of Israel's obligations under international humanitarian law.

"The closure is having a devastating impact on the 1.5 million people living in Gaza", said Béatrice Mégevand-Roggo, the ICRC's head of operations for the Middle East. "That is why we are urging Israel to put an end to this closure and call upon all those who have an influence on the situation, including Hamas, to do their utmost to help Gaza's civilian population. Israel's right to deal with its legitimate security concerns must be balanced against the Palestinians' right to live normal, dignified lives."

The international community has to do its part to ensure that repeated appeals by States and international organizations to lift the closure are finally heeded.

Under international humanitarian law, Israel must ensure that the basic needs of Gazans, including adequate health care, are met. The Palestinian authorities, for their part, must do everything within their power to provide proper health care, supply electricity and maintain infrastructure for Gaza's people.

Furthermore, all States have an obligation to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of all relief consignments, equipment and personnel.

Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is about to enter his fifth year in captivity. Hamas has continued to rebuff the ICRC's requests to let it visit Gilad Shalit. In violation of international humanitarian law, it has also refused to allow him to get in touch with his family. The ICRC again urges those detaining Gilad Shalit to grant him the regular contact with his family to which he is entitled. It also reiterates that those detaining him have an obligation to ensure that he is well treated and that his living conditions are humane and dignified.

...

[Rex Brynen]

Iranian aid ships head for Gaza (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE65D0HG.htm)
Reuters
14 Jun 2010 09:27:23 GMT


* First ship left Iran Sunday, another leaves this week
* Iran says will continue until Gaza blockade lifted
* 100,000 Iranians volunteer to crew ships - report

TEHRAN, June 14 (Reuters) - Iran is sending aid ships to blockaded Gaza, state radio said on Monday -- a move likely to be considered provocative by Israel which accuses Tehran of arming the Palestinian enclave's Islamist rulers, Hamas.

One ship left port on Sunday and another will depart by Friday, loaded with food, construction material and toys, the report said. The boats would be part of international efforts to break Israel's isolation of the Gaza Strip.

"Until the end of the Gaza blockade, Iran will continue to ship aid," said an official at Iran's Society for the Defence of the Palestinian Nation.

...

[The Cuyahoga Kid]

US urges ships from Lebanon to send aid to Gaza overland

Wed Jun 23, 2:58 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States on Wednesday urged aid ships from Lebanon to Gaza to "behave responsibly" and avoid clashes by having the aid delivered via established land routes from Israel.

"Direct delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible, and certainly not effective, under the circumstances," the State Department said when asked if Washington has discussed Gaza-bound aid shipments from Lebanon.

"We, along with our partners in the Quartet, urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza," the statement said.

The statement referred to the Diplomatic Quartet of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union.

"There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we, along with our partners in the Quartet, call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza," the statement said.

In defiance of Israeli warnings to Lebanon, organizers are planning to transport aid by sea along with dozens of Lebanese and foreign journalists to the Hamas-controlled territory.

Organizers in Beirut said one of two aid boats planning to sail to Gaza from Lebanon has received the green light to depart for Cyprus on the first leg of a trip that aims to break Israel's blockade.

While the vessel would also need Cypriot authorization to depart for Gaza from its shores, organizers have said they may change course before reaching the island and head straight towards the Palestinian territory.

In Cyprus, there was no official comment on Monday on the planned trip.

A second ship, the "Mariam," also plans to carry aid to Gaza in another attempt to break the four-year-old siege of Gaza with some 50 women-only activists on board, including 30 Lebanese.

The "Mariam" has not yet been given permission to sail.

Israel came under international censure over its May 31 seizure of a six-ship aid fleet bound for Gaza, in which nine Turkish activists were shot dead by Israeli naval commandos in clashes on the lead boat.

Using an all female crew is pretty clever of the Lebanese.

[davidbfpo]

There was the prospect of another flotilla trying to reach Gaza, part of which was stopped by the Greek coastguard - an episode covered elsewhere. What I wanted to draw attention to was the seemingly new Greek-Israeli relationship:


Israel's Air Force on Monday concluded a two-week drill with the Hellenic Air Force as the two nations cemented growing ties between their militaries, recently reflected in Greece's recent move to halt a Gaza-bound flotilla set to depart from its shores.

The joint drill was held at Greece's Larisa Air Base, and several elite Israeli squadrons, along with the IDF's elite rescue unit 669 took part in the exercise along with the Greek military.

Link:http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-greece-mark-growing-ties-with-joint-air-force-drill-1.371420?localLinksEnabled=false

I am sure the Turks would have been calm at noting this, one suspects the former relationship Israel-Turkey might be entering a "cold" period.

From the "high plane" of international affairs there's also simple logistics:
Greek authorities contacted Israel this weekend with an urgent request for teargas grenades to be used against the wave of riots that broke out in the country last week, Athens police reported on Sunday.

Link:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3638222,00.html

[Sergeant T]

For those that haven't gotten over to Information Dissemination in the past few days. (http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/07/israeli-soft-power-crushing-free-gaza.html) This is strategic Aikido at its best. (Hat tip Zenpundit.)