(Untitled)

[meanfreepath]

Why does Israel have to be put on the defensive internationally after its commandos use limited force in response to being attacked with potentially deadly weapons? Would anyone be complaining if the men and women of the US Navy were to use lethal force to defend themselves in the course of interdicting Somali pirates?

Comments

[rose_garden]

All right, I'll take the other side.

Why are they laying siege to Gaza? Well, obviously the answer is that Gaza is launching missiles at Israel. But why are they blocking humanitarian aid?

[indecisionwins]

Yeah, so I'm also kind of confused about what happened with this situation, but I don't think Israel is exactly in the right here

[rose_garden]

NPR says it's unclear who attacked whom first, after the Israelis had boarded the ship.

[indecisionwins]

Yeah, OK... Still, even if they weren't the first to attack, the Israeli army had just boarded the ship (by helicopter, at that), so it seems like the options for the people on the ship were either immediate surrender, or a fight; it might have been nice for the Israelis to try some negotiation first... (Or maybe there was reason to believe that that wouldn't get them anywhere, I don't know--but still, regardless of who actually attacked first on board the ship, it does seem like the Israelis were probably the ones primarily responsible for the situation escalating to violence as quickly as it did... Or am I missing other important details?)

[eclectic_boy]

Further, I'm unclear on these "potentially deadly weapons". The story I read suggested that when people came onto their ship from a helicopter, the ship's crew used poles and tools to try to beat them off. It sounds a lot more like defending yourself from boarders using whatever was at hand than "attack[ing] with potentially deadly weapons". Yes, a wrench can be a deadly weapon... but to call it that makes it sound like you want it treated like a gun.

Is the story I heard wrong, and the ship used guns/bayonets/grenades?

[rose_garden]

I just found this video of the event.

[meanfreepath]

I would personally consider metal poles and the like potentially deadly weapons. I'm pretty sure that if I were to start attacking a police officer with a crowbar or maybe even a baseball bat, in most jurisdictions the officer would be justified in shooting me, and I wouldn't think it unjustified. There is certainly a long history in warfare of using ersatz objects, such as entrenching spades, as lethal weapons in hand-to-hand combat, even as recently as Vietnam.

Some accounts I have read also indicate that the protesters seized guns from the Israelis. There's footage that shows some of the commandos being thrown overboard. Two Israelis suffered gunshot wounds. I would grant that it is possible for one or more of these cases to be from friendly fire, but that even if it was the Israelis who fired first the amount of violence they met while boarding more than justified the use of proportionate lethal force.

[ccommack]

Seizing a cargo ship could have been done 1) in daylight, and 2) within the 12-mile limit, instead of in international waters. The way it was actually done smacks of piracy itself, as opposed to a legitimate use of a state's naval power.

Even if the ships were trying to run a legal blockade (which it's not clear that it is), they have legally done nothing wrong until they cross the 12-mile line. Also, Israel picked the wrong country to antagonize; not only was Turkey formerly one of its own best friends and allies, but seizing Turkish-flagged merchant shipping in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea constitutes sovereign aggression, which (if things escalate) qualifies Turkey to request assistance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

[meanfreepath]

The point of a dawn raid is generally the element of surprise. Clearly this didn't succeed, but to my mind overwhelming the ship through a successful surprise attack would have accomplished the objective of stopping the vessel with the fewest injuries on either side, as well as serve to remind the world that Israel, perhaps reeling from the passport flap during the Mahmoud al-Mabhouh assassination, is not to be trifled with.

[uncleamos]

You're arguing the small point and ignoring the big one.

[ccommack]

Thank you.

[rose_garden]

Please, please: formerly illegally occupied territory.

[sildra]

What does "illegally occupied territory" even mean? Particularly in this context it sounds more like a veiled insult than meaningful terminology.

[rose_garden]

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16264970&fsrc=rss