Mavi Marmara Raid

[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, 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

[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

...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 (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, 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.

[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/0,7...898304,00.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

[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, 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."

[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.....