Yes. By all means, there should be investigation. Any and all available video, from all possible sources, should be closely examined, particularly looking to verify who attacked who first, and with what sort of weapon. All the audio in these videos should be examined by interpreters at the UN. It would be good if they got the real mission planning, but I won’t hold my breath. It is too easy to withhold, or doctor. “Proceed with caution and skepticism”. Likewise, if there is only one “official:” video, proceed with caution and skepticism. If there are multiple videos from multiple sources, and they are not just copies of each other, they can be compared - different groups can and will “edit” for their own spin.
Citizens holding a protest w/o a permit is hardly on par with foreign nationals trying to break a blockade.
As to the question of proportionality in the case at hand, the video I saw showed a mob pounding soldiers (already lying on the deck) with what looked like tire irons. Pounding with lethal force. It looked like something out of Lord of the Flies.
If further evidence comes out showing that the Israelis started the violence, then I’ll reconsider.
Honest question: what actions, if any, can a nation take to enforce a military blockade?
Followup: if they are allowed to take direct action involving the use of force to enforce a military blockade, what actions are they allowed to use in response to deadly force directed at soldiers enforcing the blockade?
A good swing to the head with a crowbar can kill someone. I would have thought people would know that. Crowbar, hammer, if you can crush a skull with it, or punch a hole in the skull, you can kill - rather easily too.
Assume a group of Mexican activists have been loudly trumpetting to the press their intention to illegally run the border of the US. They have other activists from other nations, as well as a handful of American’s who think the border policy is bad.
Upon finally reaching the border, the activists are stopped by Border Patrol agents. One group of activists, however, rather than surrender to be processed, attacks the agents. The agents first respond with pepper spray and tasers, but when several agents are down, and the activists have taken their weapons, the agents move up to lethal force, killing a number of activists.
Who is in the wrong, and why?
(I am aware that this issue is slightly different, but I’m curious to hear people’s responses.)
Israelis discover new WMDs: crowbars and plastic chairs. Kill at least twenty, injure over 70. Some of these victims may have been wielding the newfound WMDs at the time of their demise.
Meanwhile, they pride themselves in running one of the World’s largest open-air prisons. Because, as we all know, everyone in Gaza is a terrorist. And has access to crowbars and plastic chairs.
No one’s disputing that; you’re misrepresenting what I said. Again, a heavy thrown rock can be a lethal weapon. Most anything with a sufficient weight and rigidity can. But there’s a plain difference between crowbars/rocks and guns.
Quite frankly, I’ve no interest in your questions. Israel crossed the line this time.
I completely oppose the actions of Israel in regard to the flotilla, and I suggest that if Israel desires the continued unconditional support of the United States, that they cease duplicating the actions of their enemy.
Agreed. Five people beating you with a crowbar is a lot dicier than some schlub lobbing a rock at you from 30 yards away. Military types can pretty easily defend themselves against rock throwers, but when they throw you to the ground and start beating you with a tire iron… I say lethal force is not unjustified.
A serious response: the moral wrong here falls on the group of activists who attacked initially. The border agents may have committed an error of negligence, however, if they failed to make appropriate preparations to control what’s essentially a riot, even knowing one might occur.
On viewing the video, it is disturbing–if the video is not something taken out of context, I believe that the soldiers acted reasonably in response, and can’t fault the individual soldiers for how handled the situation, once forced into it.
So you refuse to identify what that line is, whether or not military blockades are allowable let alone how they can legitimately be enforced or what can be done about lethal force directed at those enforcing the blockade… but you know they’re wrong.
Check.
Yep, that’s the claim. Your argument is refreshingly straight forward and reveals no twisting of the facts to craft disingenuous analogies.
A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon.
I am sorry, but if I have a gun, and someone is coming at me with a crowbar, I will shoot. I’m not going to just stand there and let someone beat me to death, which would be a very real possibility. The same would apply if someone came at me with a knife.
In fact, I’ve personally identified that line, and I oppose it. (You’ve personally identified the line and you support it; so don’t hand me your sarcasm.) Do you, seriously, want me to mark off support for Israel as a consideration as to who I vote for? 'Cause I’m headed that way.
No, actually you haven’t.
Lines, by their very nature, have two sides. You have identified events that you state are over the line, well and good. But you will not answer what would be on the other side of the line, at all. You will not state how a blockade may validly be enforced nor how troops enforcing a valid blockade may defend themselves. Absent those factors you are not stating that there is a line and recent events crossed it, but that you object to recent events and that’s all there is to it.
No sarcasm. You’ve actually done everything I said.
-you refuse to identify what that line is
-you refuse to state whether or not military blockades are allowable let alone how they can legitimately be enforced or what can be done about lethal force directed at those enforcing the blockade
-but you know they’re wrong
Your argument seems to start and stop at the last point. You know it’s wrong, and it’s wrong because you know it’s wrong, but you can’t identify what the actually dividing line is or why it’s there. It’s just wrong.
No, I seriously want to you support your claims in a GD thread. If you’re angling for more an IMHO “I don’t like it, and that’s all there is to it.” well, then so be it. But you’ve posted a claim in GD and said that a certain action crosses a line, but you have as of yet been totally unwilling to actually discuss where that line is drawn and why. You haven’t even addressed what action you object to. Having a blockade? Enforcing the blockade? Self-defense against lethal force in the course of enforcing the blockade?
This is something of a moot point now–after seeing the video, I have to say that use of lethal force by the soldiers may have been justified, given the situation.
But, not all deadly weapons are created equal. Someone running at a policeman with a crowbar is not the same as someone shooting at a policeman. Especially in a riot, government has a responsibility to use appropriate force and maintain order in a situation, at least as best as possible.
Here, the soldiers responded to a tough, chaotic situation as best they could. But if Israel did actually need to use military force against the activists, they should have done it with a much more effective setup, namely with (1) more troops and (2) during the daytime. Because outside of all the legal issues, whenever a dozen plus people end up dead, someone royally f’ed up.
We disagree on the amount of force maybe, but again, fair enough. We simply agree to disagree?
Night time should (in theory) allow you to catch more people off guard, tired, and less alert. More troops? Definitely. The seemingly best to do it is to swarm in fast, with a lot of cops/troops. The idea is to surprise and disorient, so they can’t effectively oppose (the hope being that fewer people on both sides will get hurt). Ideally, they don’t have time or the chance to oppose you at all.
It looks at least for now, that the commandos were not expecting resistance. No resistance had happened on previous boardings. They may have gotten complacent, or simply assumed things would go quietly. They forgot the Big Rule, which states Assume Nothing.