Jump to content


Photo

Gaza aid flotilla stopped by IDF, 10-16 dead reported


  • Please log in to reply
1295 replies to this topic

#41 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,813 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1322 PM

The whole purpose of this flotilla was to embarrass Israel and destroy relations with countries like Turkey. Funny though that no ones sends aid convoys to the Kurds these days.
The organizers were either complicit in arranging the provocation, totally naive or allowed themselves to become “Useful idiots”. With 700 people aboard there was no way to control them and at the very least there was instigators aboard to ensure violence happened.

However I think the IDF and Shin Bet, Mossad failed to properly identify the potential threat and prepare for it. Once it was clear the landings would be opposed, tear gas, stun grenades and fire monitors should have been deployed. Larger ships should have been used to force the vessels off course and deluge them with water.

As for Turkey, they have to be a tad careful, many parallels can be drawn between the Pals and the Kurds, if they continue to go down this route, their complaints and actions may come back to haunt them. I however doubt anyone wants to go to war over the Palestinians. However a war between Turkish forces and the IDF would get pretty hardcore in a hurry, both side take their soldiering seriously.
  • 0

#42 Skorzeny

Skorzeny

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 265 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1343 PM

Really?

In that case why did both Germany and Britain (and many other nations) board neutral ships in international waters
during both world wars, without said neutral nations (including the USA) making much fuzz about it?


Have to add: Legally.

If nobody has the power or will to smithe thee, you can do whatever you want, its just not legal.
  • 0

#43 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1355 PM


San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea
Excerpt:

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked
unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or
breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly
refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or
capture;
(B) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
© act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action,
e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the
attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety.
Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that
they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.


Seems to be internationally accepted and used manual.

Art. 146 of same:

146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they:

(a) are carrying contraband;

(B) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are
embodied in the armed forces of the enemy;

© are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction;

(d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal
documents;

(e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or

(f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.

Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication.


  • 0

#44 LeoTanker

LeoTanker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,363 posts

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1357 PM

Did the Elite Navy Special Commandos get their weapons back after the raid?

Seriousely though, these protesters/voulonteers/activists/what ever sure are stupid.. Wtf did they realy expect? Doesnt matter whos right and whos wrong here, a blind retard could have seen this coming.
  • 0

#45 Guest_aevans_*

Guest_aevans_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1401 PM

If I might politely point out, you and I are not highly-trained naval commandos. They used deadly force and embarrassed their government. They screwed up.


Excuse me, but when were you ever a "highly-trained naval commando"? What do you know about their mission or the constraints they were operating under? I'm not a naval commando, nor do I play one on TV, but unlike you I've worked closely with them (US Navy SEALs) and watched them train. I would never assert that they could have done any better than Sayeret 13 did, given the touchiness of the situation. They're trained to fight people with modern small arms and explosives. They aren't riot police. And even riot police are equipped with firearms and will use them if forced to to defend themselves.

Also, in the case of trying to resist physical attack aboard ship, there's the little detail of not being able to retreat. Riot police can always run away if they are too much outnumbered or faced with unexpected weapons. Commandos with their backs to a bulkhead or a rail? Not so much.

Perfectly true. One of the tricks of a special operation is world-class intelligence and planning. The Powers That Be sent those guys into a bad situation. Once there, I hold they messed up, but I am willing to change my mind as facts come to light.

All in all, the IDF failed at several levels.


Only if your idea of special operations and intelligence comes out of Frederick Forsyth novels.

Edited by aevans, 31 May 2010 - 1414 PM.

  • 0

#46 Exel

Exel

    1.PsvK

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,093 posts

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1402 PM

What does "outside neutral waters" mean here exactly? Outside sovereign waters of a neutral state or outside international waters?
  • 0

#47 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,552 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, MO area

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1402 PM

Perfectly true. One of the tricks of a special operation is world-class intelligence and planning. The Powers That Be sent those guys into a bad situation. Once there, I hold they messed up, but I am willing to change my mind as facts come to light.

All in all, the IDF failed at several levels.



Excuse me?!?!?!? Say you're being assaulted by a bunch of savages with metal poles, firebombs, and stun grenades (oh yeah, they were peaceful alright) and some trying to kidnap you. Are you gonna lay there and take it, or are you going to shoot some of the sons of bitches? You never cease to fucking amaze me.

Israel screwed the pooch by conducting this outside its territorial waters. But I bet these assholes don't try to send another flotilla to Israel again. Lesson learned.

As to the casualties, just like some Americans learned in Boston, when you go for soldiers, don't be surprised when they shoot your stupid ass dead. Oh yeah Paul, John Adams defended those said soldiers in court, and got them all aquitted of wrongdoing.

Edited by Jim Martin, 31 May 2010 - 1405 PM.

  • 0

#48 Cyber_Ghost

Cyber_Ghost

    Evil Zionist

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Givat Brener, Israel.

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1402 PM

Did the Elite Navy Special Commandos get their weapons back after the raid?

Seriousely though, these protesters/voulonteers/activists/what ever sure are stupid.. Wtf did they realy expect? Doesnt matter whos right and whos wrong here, a blind retard could have seen this coming.

They're the useful fools. The whole thing was a setup - they either breach the blockade and then Erdogan is seen as the savior of Gaza, Israel has not reason to stop the next ship or the one after and 10 ships down the line comes a ship with weapons - OR - Israel takes over the ship in which case it's showed to be the villain. A win - win situation.
  • 0

#49 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland/now Israel
  • Interests:military, martial arts, wargames, literature

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1406 PM

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

http://www.icrc.org/...125641f002d49ce

will give some light to legal aspect.

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b ) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c ) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.


According to this Israel was well within their rights to stop "convoy" and when resisted, use force.

Edited by Sardaukar, 31 May 2010 - 1407 PM.

  • 0

#50 Jim Martin

Jim Martin

    Kick me! I'm not allowed to hit back!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,552 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, MO area

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1408 PM

San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994

http://www.icrc.org/...125641f002d49ce

will give some light to legal aspect.

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT

Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b ) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c ) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.


According to this Israel was well within their rights to stop "convoy" and when resisted, use force.



Section (a) puts a whole different light on the legality of the raid, thanks for that. Were they given prior warning?
  • 0

#51 Guest_aevans_*

Guest_aevans_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1408 PM

What does "outside neutral waters" mean here exactly? Outside sovereign waters of a neutral state or outside international waters?


Outside the sovereign waters of a neutral state.
  • 0

#52 Guest_aevans_*

Guest_aevans_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1410 PM

Section (a) puts a whole different light on the legality of the raid, thanks for that. Were they given prior warning?


According to the article Tuccy posted in the beginning of the topic:

"Two hours later, Israel Radio broadcast a recording of one of the missile boats warning the flotilla not to approach Gaza.

'If you ignore this order and enter the blockaded area, the Israeli navy will be forced to take all the necessary measures in order to enforce this blockade,' the radio message continued."


quod erat demonstrandum

Edited by aevans, 31 May 2010 - 1411 PM.

  • 0

#53 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland/now Israel
  • Interests:military, martial arts, wargames, literature

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1410 PM

Section (a) puts a whole different light on the legality of the raid, thanks for that. Were they given prior warning?


They were repeatedly told by IDF prior arriving that they were going to be stopped. Hell, one could read that from papers everyday.
  • 0

#54 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland/now Israel
  • Interests:military, martial arts, wargames, literature

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1416 PM

Have to add: Legally.

If nobody has the power or will to smithe thee, you can do whatever you want, its just not legal.


Took me 20 secs to find relevant international law document about issue. Israel has declared Hamas a belligerent in conflict (and Hamas has not denied it...:glare: ). According to international law, once Israel had placed a blockade against enemy (since both sides are considered to be in armed conflict), they were well within their rights to stop those ships and when resisted, to use force.

Do not confuse these issues with commercial and civilian sailing laws. These are "big boys rules" and internationally accepted. Thus, for example USA was not complaining, when it's ships were stopped and searched on international waters by nations in state of war. Neither in WW I or in WW II. In both cases USA was definitely able to do something about it, but because these rules have been recognized for looong time, they chose not to.

Edited by Sardaukar, 31 May 2010 - 1418 PM.

  • 0

#55 swerve

swerve

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,779 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reading, Berkshire
  • Interests:Too many to list all, but include military, economic &technological history. And cycling.

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1420 PM

The whole purpose of this flotilla was to embarrass Israel and destroy relations with countries like Turkey.

Indeed, & the organisers must now be thanking Allah for the way the Israelis co-operated as hoped.
  • 0

#56 Guest_aevans_*

Guest_aevans_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1432 PM

Indeed, & the organisers must now be thanking Allah for the way the Israelis co-operated as hoped.


What choice did Israel have?

Allow the convoy to proceed to Gaza? Not if they wanted the blockade to mean something.

Sink the convoy or at least drive it off with gunfire? Not likely, for reasons that should not need explanation.

Board the convoy and redirect it? The least bad choice, but open to all kinds of misadventure.

Once the decision was made to send the convoy, there was no way Israel was going to get away without getting its finger burned. Given the alternatives, I'm not at all convinced that this was all that bad.
  • 0

#57 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1437 PM

The israel was ina lose-lose situation. If they didn't stop the fleet, the damage would be probably much worse as they'd be forced to sink someone sooner rather than later as everyone and their dog would start to try blockade running.
  • 0

#58 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland/now Israel
  • Interests:military, martial arts, wargames, literature

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1438 PM

As aevans said, Israel had very little choises in matter..and I agree that they did choose "least bad" option.

If they had let them through, blockade would have been rendered meaningless...and one cannot usually sink civilian ships without very good reason. So, boarding and capture was basically the only option.
  • 0

#59 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,604 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland/now Israel
  • Interests:military, martial arts, wargames, literature

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1444 PM

On the other hand..I doubt anyone is going to try to breach the blockade again for a while. But I probably should not underestimate the craziness of the people trying that in first place. :P

(I just did learn new hebrew saying...""pitzutz shel mesiba"...:lol: )

Edited by Sardaukar, 31 May 2010 - 1456 PM.

  • 0

#60 Marek Tucan

Marek Tucan

    Powerpoint Ranger, Chairborne

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,973 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Versailles, France

Posted 31 May 2010 - 1456 PM

According to some sources inc. Al jazzeera reporter the ship raised a whte flag prior to arrival of the commandos...
What was traditional sanction for fighting under the flag of truce?
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users