EDIT: Retracted notice and warning, following Marley’s lead.
No, they don’t have any right to “self defence” in this situation. If you are willing to assume that the blockade is legitimate, they do not have the right to attack the soldiers who were doing nothing but enforcing that blockade. Just like if you’re breaking the law, you have no right to “self defence” against a police officer who tries to arrest you.
Will you permit them the right to fear for their lives when the Israelis fire upon them, or is that also disallowed in a blockade situation?
I actually agree with this expalantion more or less. Your analogy assumes an orderly, non-violence on the part of the IDF. If the IDF initially used wonton force in the initial boarding of the ship or made the passengers fear the boarding before hand, I can see how people may go from “I guess we’re going to jail” to “Holy shit! These are pirates in Israeli uniforms”. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it depends on how he IDF approached the situation from the beginning to the end.
Let me try to give an example. You’re on a ship from Turkey to Gaza to deliver cargo containing cordiander, Baby Ruths, and Sugar Daddies. The IDF approaches your flotilla and informs you and your cohorts that your boat will be boarded and escorted to <insert Israel port city>. The IDF explains where they will be going and how they will be deported. The IDF makes it clear that forces will be boarding the flotilla and that it desires nothing but a peaceful acquisition of the flotilla, its cargo of candies, and you. Now, in this case, if you were to attack the IDF when they boarded, you’d be totally wrong and deserving to be shot by the IDF.
- Honesty
That depends on if you have any evidence that the Israelis fired upon them before they attacked with improvised weapons. If not, it’s their own damn fault if their banzai charge gets them shot at.
Why does it depend on whether I personally have evidence? I should think the determining factor would be the perceptions of those on the ship being boarded.
I’d be happy to read anything you’d like to point me to. I’ve read this thread, though it’s entirely possible I need to re-read some parts. Do you have any suggestions?
They have that right because they’ve declared it so. They continue to have that right for as long as the international community allows it. Whether or not we, the people of the world, continue to allow it is the real crux of the debate on the blockade.
I’ll admit they could have named the boat better, but I think “The Guilty Smuggler” was meant to be ironic.
Seriously though, do you have any reason to think this? Or by “honest” do you mean “prejudiced”?
This analogy, and your later analogy involving airport security, involve situations where the law is well-established and mostly agreed upon. They do not apply so well to an international incident.
I feel I’ve pretty much covered this above, but I just wanted to caution you that your analogy once again assumes the activists struck first.
As it should be no surprise that armed men rappelling from a helicopter would be not be welcomed with open arms.
You mean like the attempt to deliberately and artificially manufacture a schism between the Palestinians and their elected government? By which, of course, I’m referring to the blockade at the source of this dispute.
Considering who these folks were? Send diplomats. Whatever you may think of them, the flotilla was calling itself a non-violent protest, and decency (though perhaps not international law) dictates you treat them accordingly.
What reason did the activists have to believe the cargo would arrive at it’s intended destination if they gave it to Israel? Considering this whole blockade is justified by Hamas being a real enemy, what reason do I have to hand aid over to the enemy of it’s intended recipient?
From Turkey? An ally to Israel?
Well, it’d be better than soldiers. I may be wrong, but aren’t port authorities typically trained in police procedures? Police are trained to control and subdue. Soldiers are trained to kill.
It’s an ugly truth, but that would be a much better political situation for Israel. That’s how this ugly game of chicken is played, and the only way we both win is if we both lose.
Nothing would undermine the IFF’s cause like a reasoned, non-violent response to angry mobism. Worst case scenario, they actually get taken by hostage by the activists. You’d be able to hear the Fox-heads screaming about that in Alpha Centauri, and they’d be right.
Everybody is responsible, nobody is innocent. The IDF, IFF, you and me, all of us are responsible. We are an international community, and we have allowed this to happen.
It depends on whether you have that evidence because the perceptions of those on the ship being boarded will only influence my opinion of events if they were not the aggressors. If the Israelis did not open fire during their lawful attempt to enforce the blockade until they were attacked by the occupants of the ship, those occupants get no sympathy from me just because their bravado at attacking innocent men shriveled up the moment the Israelis fought back.
Is there some reason you presuppose the ‘innocence’ of the boarding troops?
Do you have proof that they did not provoke a response in some way?
Given the storyline that the killings were the result of a big screwup on the part of the troops, how do you know precisely when that screwup started?
Or didn’t the boarders screw up all?
Pardon me Grumman and Squink, but I just finished wading through 10 pages and this mis-reading was at the end of it and bugged me.
Could somebody tell me if there was an earlier, less aggressive attempt to stop these ships, beyond just verbal warnings, or did they jump straight from ‘stop now’ to a nighttime commando raid? Isn’t there something else that might have been tried first, maybe in the daytime? Clearly, the activists were trying to provoke some kind of incident, to attract media attention, but Israel’s response seems to me almost tailor-made to cause things to go completely pear-shaped.
Why at night, when it is harder to see what is happening and more likely to provoke fear and panic? Why arm commandos with paint guns? Aren’t they more likely to start firing with non-lethal guns, especially on a group that is at the very least emotionally charged, and probably hostile? And are the activists, seeing the commandos raising their guns and firing at them, supposed to know that those are paint guns, what with all the tear gas and flash grenades and screaming, shoving, pushing and pandemonium happening, or is it reasonable to think they are being shot at by real guns and react with knives and crowbars or whatever?
Some dopers with marine and military and law enforcement knowledge please enlighten me. Was there really no better way to go about stopping this ship?
Here are some questions for you - why were there only crew member deaths and serious injuries on the boat that there is video of crew members beating commandos? Is the allegation that Israel shot at all six ships and only got a violent response from one of them or did the commandos refrain from firing on five of the ships and arbitrarily decide to fire on the sixth and last ship to check their weapons?
There does not appear to be any “storyline” that the deaths were a screw-up on the part of the commandos, only that they are regretable and probably could have been prevented if either the ship’s crew members did not forcibly resist the commandos or if the commandos had been better prepared for a violent response. Some in Israel are calling for the defense minister to resign for the latter.
So far as I’ve heard, no weapons were on board. Are we talking about weapons-grade coriander and/or assault chocolates?
Read what you wrote. You are accusing these guys of using guns that the COMMANDOES brought on board.
Just like Gandhi’s salt march was designed to heap scorn on the Brits for what they were doing. These guys fell short of Gandhi but they didn’t come armed with Ak-47s and anti-aircraft rockets either.
Noone forced them to put Israel in Palestine. They knew the dynamics when they decided to create a country against the wishes of ALL their neighbors.
Malthus and Finn have made very convincing arguments that putting Israel would have resulted in a much less populous country but I don’t know how much mileage you get from the “we’re surrounded by enemies” card when you made them your enemies when you placed yourself in their midst.
Apparently not enough.
Do they trust the folks in Gaza? Why should the folks in Gaza trust them?
Yep its all antisemitism, it couldn’t possibly be anything else.:rolleyes:
Israel seems to have painted itself into a corner. They now have a blockade that is going to be challenged by a NATO nation warship (of course now that Egypt has opened its border, the blockade is ineffective anyway). Israel can’t engage the warship without provoking all of NATO but Turkey now has an excuse to park big honking warships at Gaza’s port. The UN Security Council is meeting. The Arab Peace Plan for 1967 borders is probably off the table. If there are any cool heads in the arab league right now I cannot identify them. America better get an aircraft carrier group into the Mediterranean in a hurry or this could be bad for everyone.
Maybe its time to get rid of Likud and put Labor party back in power.
Is that what Turkish warships can expect when they escort humanitarian aid ships to Gaza?
I think it bears repeating that Israel doesn’t have a “right” to board ships. Its just not illegal or a war crime to do it.
This is a good point. I suppose it has something to do with the whole “I don’t want those refugees in my country” attitude. What will Egypt do now? Will they try to screen for Hamas?
Oh, good point! And they would have known that because they could have used their magical detectors to determine that ahead of time, right? Well, you got me there.
-XT
You make it sound like Israel had no choice but to do what they did.
It would be illegal if they weren’t cops. Cops have the police power.