Did the flotilla organizers make that suggestion? Would they have allowed Israeli customs agents onboard? Could they have guaranteed their safety?
I doubt it. The whole point of this affair was to cause an international incident. The organizers would never have cooperated with Israel on anything - otherwise, they would have accepted the Israeli offer to land at Ashdod and transport the cargo to Gaza.
Something your government happily played right into, is my point. Look, I’m not a raving “death to Israel” sort of person, I just think they displayed some astoundingly bad judgement on this occasion. It reminds me quite a bit of the SS Exodus incident, honestly.
The thing is, now that Israeli soldiers have been hurt, the next time they won’t bother boarding the ships. They’ll just do things the old-fashioned way - a shot over the bow, followed by an ultimatum.
Oh, the organizers did a brilliant job, I’ll give them that. But it was a lose-lose situation on Israel’s behalf. If they had just let them through the Arabs would have won just as big a victory - only then they might also have missiles. All in all, Israel’s chosen action was the least of all possible evils.
I’m not really sure I’d count ten or more dead civilians as “the least of all evils” unless you’re presuming them guilty of funnelling weapons and contraband into Gaza without any more evidence than a PR spin-cycle statement from the Israeli government (probably as biased a source as the people on the boats).
Even accepting the blockade (which I don’t, and I’m a naval historian writing a Ph.D that involves a historical plan of blockade tactics) I can’t see how these ships could justify a response involving live ammunition.
I’m curious, what is “legitimate humanitarian cargo” exactly, according to Lantern’s link what Israel does and does not allow into Gaza appear to be somewhat arbitrary.
Since there’s been precious little actual citations happening in here (something which I fully admit being partly responsible for), here’s a detached but excellent analysis from Haaretz:
Based on nothing but guesses coming out of my ass, I’m going to assume that what happened was the result of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
I don’t think the organizers wanted a lot of dead people resulting from the clash. I think they wanted a lot of photogenic bruises and a few super-photogenic broken bones and documented altercations.
I know for a fact that we (the Israelis) wanted the whole incident to be concluded with as little damage as possible, because every bruise, every filmed altercation, every broken bone is a PR win for Hamas. The deaths are a PR heaven for them – and yes, they are that cynical about it.
As to the ideas of customs officials checking the ships – as Alessan pointed out already, if the ships would have consented to being searched, or to landing at Ashdod, that’s what would have happened. The bare truth is that the organizers of the flotilla did not care an iota for getting the humanitarian aid into Gaza. The sole purpose of this whole event was a PR win. Which they got, and at a terrible cost – which I will reiterate I’m sure neither side anticipated nor wanted.
Sort of like happens sometimes in Urban Riots – events get out of hand, and neither the organizers nor the authorities attempting to control the events can control the outcome; and tragic deaths ensue.
Or, to summarize a possibly over-long post – what happened was, I think, a monumental clusterfuck, that neither side envisioned, nor wanted, nor could, ultimately, control.
On preview – I agree with the lion’s share of the Ha’Aretz analysis (and I see that they make quite a few points that are similar to mine.)
I think the idea that the flotilla organisers actively didn’t care about whether they got supplies through to Gaza is ridiculous, honestly. I’m sure they had a reasonable doubt whether they would succeed, but I don’t think the fact that they expected and prepared for a major incident is evidence they were at all insincere in their desire to run the blockade.
Moreover, dismissing the idea that some less overtly threatening efforts by Israel to stop and inspect the ships (without diverting them so far away from the Gaza coastline) would’ve failed misses the point that, from the point of avoiding negative publicity, it still would have been a very good idea to try them because it would give evidence of the flotilla having at least some less-than-noble motives.
Generally, I’d sort of agree. But there’s a major caveat since there’s not much proof at all that this is, in fact, what happened apart from a government flak-catcher’s statement. This is also the first I’ve heard of knives and crowbars being used. In fact, all I’ve heard and seen from the video filmed on the boat are some sticks.
I’ll get you some video proof when some comes up. Till then, Israeli media is reporting 10 wounded soldiers, two of them seriously, from blunt trauma to the head and stabbing wounds. There are also some rumours of troops wounded from gunfire, but they haven’t been confirmed yet.
I know for a fact, from my own personal sources, that the soldiers were ordered not to fire unless their lives were at risk. These are very highly trained troops onb a very delicate mission - they wouldn’t disobey orders out of panic or trigger-happiness.
The United States has territorial waters under maritime tradition or “common law” (and in fact ought to go ahead and finish ratifying the treaty it has signed).
No interpretation of maritime tradition would permit Israel to intercept vessels in international waters, bound for another territory, regardless of their cargo, except as an act of war.
That’s like saying the Satyagraha march of 1930 was just a PR event and the Indians didn’t really need any salt. Well, yes and no. There were real supplies on those vessels that the people in Gaza really need, but obviously there’s a larger issue in play as well.
Not really as those people wouldn’t be coming at the armed soldiers at all if the armed soldiers hadn’t attacked … with live ammunition. Yours is a classic case of blaming the victim.