Mavi Marmara Raid

[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/pos...culiar_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, 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.

[Sergeant T]

Is apparently on the way. 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 (brokered personally by then Sec of State Rice). It was never properly implemented, and subsequently collapsed with Hamas' electoral victory and later take-over of Gaza....