A bunch of eyewitness accounts are collected here. Various left-wing blogs are trumpeting these accounts as contradicting the Israeli account, but there are actually more commonalities, or at least more important commonalities, than differences. The commonalities:
(1) Ship passengers armed themselves with makeshift weapons to prevent the Israeli navy from boarding. Israel claims that these passengers were well-organized with quasi-military discipline and had trained for this task. I don’t see anything in the eyewitness accounts to contradict that.
(2) When the first Israeli commandos landed, they were attacked by the armed passengers, beaten, and taken hostage. According to the eyewitnesses, some of the other passengers tried to protect the soldiers from being killed, and I haven’t seen Israeli accounts that say otherwise.
(3) All hell broke loose thereafter.
Note that the agreed-upon points contradict the initial claims of the Free Gaza spokespeople that their passengers would never, ever, intentionally engage the IDF with violence. Either they were lying, or didn’t realize they had passengers on board who were planning on a violent confrontation.
The differences:
(1) Passengers claim that Israel first sent noise bombs and perhaps tear gas on to the ship, and also tried to land from the sea with grappling hooks, before the commandos started to land via helicopter. This is not so much a contradiction as it is the claim that the videos Israel has released don’t start at the very beginning of the operation, but only when the commandos start to land from the air. But assuming that there were armed men on board obviously trying to prevent the navy from boarding, I’m not sure why using noise bombs and tear gas changes the substance of the story; if anything, it reinforces the view that Israel was trying to take the ship with non-lethal force, and the response was a severe beating of the sailors who boarded by armed men who organized in advance for that purpose.
(2) A few eyewitnesses, in particular an Al-Jazeera reporter, claim that Israel used live ammunition before the navy boarded. It seems to defy credulity that Israel would fire bullets into an crowd of angry protesters, and then drop commandos armed with paint guns one by one into the midst of that crowd. Charitably, perhaps the reporter mistook other sounds for live fire. The other option is that the Israeli navy is murderous, its leaders completely oblivious to world opinion, and even more incompetent than what’s obvious from what we otherwise know.
(3) Israel says that the some of the activists had guns, and tossed them overboard to avoid capture. The activists claim that the weapons they tossed overboard were taken from the soldiers they disarmed. Since everyone agrees that the weapons are overboard, we may never know the truth. One oddity: the activists claim that they stripped the weapons of ammo, then tossed them overboard. But if you are going to toss weapons overboard, why take the ammo out first? Also, Israel claims that when Israel took control of the ship some of the activists still had the guns they took from Israeli personnel.
(4) Israel claims that all of the dead were armed and violent. The eyewitnesses claim some of them were journalists. At least one example may have involved a “fog of war” error–an eyewitness claims that a journalist was shot when he pointed a camera at an Israeli soldier. Pointing things at a soldier in the midst of a violent incident is not a good idea.
UPDATE: Here’s an account from the Israeli commando who turned the battle around and shot six of the nine fatalities. He says that Israel fired warning shots before commencing the helicopter landing. So a picture is emerging. Israel expected non-violent resistance, with perhaps some scuffling or whatnot. So the navy tried to board from the sea with the help of noise bombs and maybe tear gas. This didn’t dissuade the armed faction on board, which was armed and prepared for battle. (“The group was well trained and was split into a number of squads of about 20 mercenaries each distributed throughout the upper deck, the IDF said. All of the mercenaries wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests and were armed with either bats, slingshots, metal bars, knives or stun grenades.”) With the sea route stifled, Israel send commandos to land via helicopter. The commandos fired warning shots and stun grenades, which they expected would disperse the crowd, as it would if they were simply activist rioters putting on a minor show of resistance. What the commandos didn’t know is that they were facing trained operatives, who didn’t flinch at the warning shots. This is when the navy made its huge error. When the warning shots failed to disperse the crowd, the commander should have recognized that this wasn’t a random crowd of activists as expected, but trained individuals intent on a violent confrontation. The mission should have been aborted right then and there, and a new strategy devised. Instead, some genius decided to send naval commandos one by one down into the hostile armed crowd. The first several to land were beaten to pulp and taken hostage, and, at least according to Israeli reports, the oncoming commandos were fired on, and also beaten. At this point, the commandos who were not captive began to use lethal force to defend themselves, rescue their comrades, and gain control of the ship.
Angus says:
In regards to (2), I saw an interview from one survivor on the ship on a youtube video where he said that the Israeli soldiers in the boats trying to board fired what turned out to be rubber bullets at the people gathered on the rail. In the dark, with people unused to hearing gunshots or feeling rubber bullets, I can see how they could confuse that with live fire.
In the same vein, for people who haven’t experienced them, I’m sure noise bombs and tear gas increase their panic rather than decrease it. If I were getting tear gassed and bombarded by noise, my first reaction would not be “How comforting — this is nonlethal force!”
June 4, 2010, 11:56 pmneurodoc says:
Think Kurosawa’s Rashomon.
June 5, 2010, 12:01 amOrenWithAnE says:
(4) Actually seems vaguely plausible.
June 5, 2010, 12:10 amsteve s says:
We really should not be spending a lot of time on what happened once the troops went down the rope. What happened was the probable outcome if you send people one by one into an angry group that has already armed itself with chains and pipes. The real problem was having weeks to prepare and not having a competent plan that did not play into the hands of the flotilla. I hope no one really believes the flotilla was going there to give aid. It was an attempt to provoke a bad Israeli response. It worked. Israeli leadership failed badly.
Steve
June 5, 2010, 12:15 amRobert says:
What other options did Israel have besides to board the ships? The only other option I can think of off hand is to sink them, since I doubt the captains would have followed orders to stop trying to run the blockade and go home. That would have been far more disastrous.
June 5, 2010, 12:21 amKevin! says:
Good lord, I hope I never point a camera at Bernstein at night.
June 5, 2010, 12:23 amTrue Friend of Israel says:
I’d be interested in any crime or war statistics on dead bodies found having one bullet to the chest and four bullets to the head. Do you really believe Furkan Dogan was not executed?
Do you really believe the Israeli government is blockading only weapons?
You guys are living in a fantasy world. Staying in your fantasy is not in the enlightened interests of Israel.
There is the oft-quoted line, “Israel can be democratic, Jewish, or in all of the occupied territories–pick any two.” The current government has opted for the last two, and is turning Israel into an apartheid state. I weep for the soul of the country I used to know.
June 5, 2010, 12:25 amAlex S. says:
Re #1,
It may not be unreasonable for them to have used those things in further attempt at achieving goals via non-lethal means, but if they did use those measures (and I don’t know if that is true) before putting the commandos on board, why did Israel not divulge this in their version?
June 5, 2010, 12:42 amDavid Bernstein says:
Maybe because the initial story the activists put out was that they were unarmed and didn’t engage in any violence, and that Israel simply massacred unarmed civilians, and this was both the most damaging allegation and the most easily rebutted falsehood.
June 5, 2010, 12:53 amOrenWithAnE says:
Has anyone claimed they are? They are blocking the contraband of war, which includes anything that can be used immediately to further the hostilities.
June 5, 2010, 12:55 amKevin! says:
Here’s a list of the dead people:
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2010/06/putting-names-to-faces.html
They do look pretty murderous and vicious.
June 5, 2010, 12:56 amAlan Jeffries says:
You are a Zionist whose views, whether correct or incorrect, are not to be taken seriously. Instead of publishing in the NYT or WSJ, that’s why you’re relegated to a blog. Cheers.
June 5, 2010, 12:58 amleo marvin says:
I also want Israel to be free of the moral burden of occupation. How do you propose it get there without putting its citizens in even more danger?
June 5, 2010, 12:58 amJK says:
Israel also claimed that the IDF soldiers were armed only with paintball guns and side arms, but it later came out that the activists took an M-4 off one of the soldiers.
Who fired live rounds first seems like an important fact to me. Israel had the right to stop and board the ship as part of a lawful blockade. They did not have the right to fire on unruly civilian passengers unless they were faced with deadly force.
A flag of surrender puts an obligation on both parties, not just the surrendering ship. If the IDF both 1) fired tear gas and rubber bullets onto the ship before boarding and 2) were the first to fire live round during the boarding process, that paints a very different picture in my mind than if they didn’t fire on the ship before boarding and only responded live fire after side arms were taken and used against them.
June 5, 2010, 1:00 amq says:
I commend you for admitting you don’t take seriously the correct views of people you don’t like. Not many people are willing to flaunt their biases like that.
June 5, 2010, 1:03 amzack smith says:
JK: “A flag of surrender puts an obligation on both parties, not just the surrendering ship. If the IDF both 1) fired tear gas and rubber bullets onto the ship before boarding and 2) were the first to fire live round during the boarding process, that paints a very different picture in my mind than if they didn’t fire on the ship before boarding and only responded live fire after side arms were taken and used against them.”
Not neccessarily. The IDF could have done 1, been attacked with lethal force (just not bullets), and then done 2, with justification. In fact, I think that’s what happened. (Purely guessing, of course.)
June 5, 2010, 1:05 amzack smith says:
The Greenwald/etc line, which exonerates the passengers, requires the belief that rubber bullets are lethal force, and that knives and metal bars are ‘unarmed.’
June 5, 2010, 1:06 amOrenWithAnE says:
The Israeli Major that landed in the second wave reported opening live fire on an activist that had taken a soldier’s gun and was pointing it at that soldier’s head. This would give rise to a pretty justified barrage of fire that is consistent with those injuries.
I don’t know what happened to Furkan Dogan but to posit that the nature of the injuries points unambiguously to the context in which he was killed is dubious.
June 5, 2010, 1:07 amq says:
Your Bayesian filter is broken. Even assuming your description of his injuries are true, and even assuming the a priori probability of an execution is equal to the a priori probability of combat fire (a pretty ridiculous assumption, I know), you’re still far more likely to find those injuries in a warzone than from an execution.
June 5, 2010, 1:14 amAlan Jeffries says:
The problem w/ this whole situation is that everyone is viewing it on the micro level. Let’s elevate the discussion to the meta/macro level. We know several things to be true. 1) Israelis are always under attack. 2) Might does not equal right w/ this situation or any other situation involving Palestinians; 3) simplify as you might, it’s not so simple. It’
June 5, 2010, 1:19 ams very, very complicated (why scholars dedicate careers to it as opposed to vituperative blog posts…check yourself DB) That being said, it’s time to abdicate the victim/terrorist paradigm here. It’s time to look at it from the meta level and realize that the only solution is a two state one … Hamas won’t go away even if you bombombombomb bombombabomb! them because they are based on an idea — not a cause — but an idea that has taken hold, and will hold until there is no more bloodshed. And if there IS more bloodshed, well, then there will be war.
JK says:
I didn’t mean to imply that it had to be one scenario or the other, just that – at least to me- the nature of the disputed facts does in fact matter.
Regarding (1) whether Israel fired less-lethal ordinance on the ship before boarding: this matters because it goes to whether the IDF accepted the ship’s surrendered and the activists committed perfidy when they attacked the IDF boarding parting or whether the IDF rejected the surrender (presumably in, lets say reasonable, anticipation of perfidy) by firing on the ship and the activists therefore regained their right to defend the ship.
Regarding (2) who fired first: I agree in theory that other deadly force besides gun fire could justify firearm use, but I would still like to know why fired live rounds first. While a metal bar can certainly be lethal, its still a lot different than an M-4. I guess the question should be which side used lethal force that could not be repulsed without firearms first?
June 5, 2010, 1:45 amq says:
I might’ve believed you were being serious if you had said Fatah or maybe the Palestinians in general, but Hamas is based on the idea that Israel should be destroyed. None of their actions speak to any desire for a two-state solution.
June 5, 2010, 1:48 amleo marvin says:
When you see Mafia assassinations in the movies, it’s usually two shots to the head. Maybe they assassinated him twice.
June 5, 2010, 1:55 amUrsus Maritimus says:
The main Israeli mistake was using just two fastropes. When the blockade runners dragged away one fast rope and tied it up, the commandos were limited to dropping down one at the time: They were dribbling in in penny packets while all of the blockade runners were waiting for them. You don’t need to be named ‘Wingate’ to know that will end badly.
Doesn’t the US use 4 or 6 fastropes from one helo at once?
The Israelis clearly need to work on ways to nonlethally clear a windswept open area with lots of cover and obstructions. Really big bursting tear gas grenades? Stingballs? Teargas and water mix sprayed from fire hoses on a second helo? Or ways of inserting 4+ commandos at once.
June 5, 2010, 2:14 amdbhsbvw3w says:
“A few eyewitnesses, in particular an Al-Jazeera reporter, claim that Israel used live ammunition before the navy boarded.”
I read that the Israelis fired warning shots before descending from the helicopter. Maybe the peace terrorists and terror journalists on the ship mistook warning shots for aimed fire.
I also read that the Israelis found ammunition, scopes, etc on the ship that were not compatible with the Israelis’ weapons. If this is right, it is likely that the peace terrorists had guns on the ship. This vindicates the Israeli blockade and the use of force to enforce it because the purpose of the blockade is to prevent weapons from being delivered to Gaza.
It makes perfect sense that the peace terrorists wanted to keep their prisoners alive. Their game is information war not real war. A hostage is a huge victory and a huge lever. All things considered, including the limited life expectancy of previous Jewish hostages in that situation, the Israelis were completely justified in using deadly force to protect themselves, rescue any fellows that got separated, and complete their mission of preventing the peace terrorists from delivering weapons being to Gaza.
June 5, 2010, 2:28 amEH says:
Oh, do tell where you read this gem.
June 5, 2010, 2:42 amOrenWithAnE says:
Actually, if the esteemed laureate took a quick peek through the law books, he would see that the crew of a blockade running ship is entirely immune from arrest or detention — they are to be immediately released.
June 5, 2010, 3:17 amBruce Hayden says:
My understanding from the news today is that they found 9 mm casings, which are apparently incompatible with the weapons carried by the Israelis. We shall see if this is just rumor, or turns out to be true.
June 5, 2010, 4:26 amHWMNBN says:
Ship passengers armed themselves with makeshift weapons to prevent the Israeli navy from boarding.
Can someone explain to me why this is, in and of itself, so damning to the protestors? This was a foreign-flagged vessel in international waters. Doesn’t the crew have a right to self-defense if boarded, in much the way that it would against, say, Somali pirates?
June 5, 2010, 5:45 amNocomment says:
My understanding from the news today is that they found 9 mm casings, which are apparently incompatible with the weapons carried by the Israelis.
If the IDF planted such casings, or just alleged that they found them after the fact, then that would justify everything.
Was there any practical reason that Israeli forces could not wait for the ship to leave international waters? I saw one poster mention the possibility of a ship “loitering” at the boundary. Did that happen here?
I can sort of understand the idea that a blockading nation does not have to wait for a ship to leave international waters if that is the only practical way to accomplish interdiction. Beyond that, it seems like aid ships should be allowed to pick and choose when they want to be detained and searched, and that they should make that choice by deciding when to leave international waters.
I don’t recall any of this discussion about the apparent intentions of the crew when that British boat was caught near (or perhaps in) Iranian waters back in 2007.
June 5, 2010, 6:16 amHippos Go Beserk says:
2 items:
1) “I’d be interested in any crime or war statistics on dead bodies found having one bullet to the chest and four bullets to the head. Do you really believe Furkan Dogan was not executed?
The Israeli Major that landed in the second wave reported opening live fire on an activist that had taken a soldier’s gun and was pointing it at that soldier’s head. This would give rise to a pretty justified barrage of fire that is consistent with those injuries.
I don’t know what happened to Furkan Dogan but to posit that the nature of the injuries points unambiguously to the context in which he was killed is dubious.”
I’d put it differently – SSgt. S has stated that he organized the team into a perimeter and organized the team. If Dogan was the tail end Charlie, he could easily have run into the line of fire of three or four commandos at very short range, and been hit by each of them nearly simultaneously. Two or three well aimed shots from each, and he’s hit five times. Much more likely than a 4 headshot execution.
2) More importantly – a bleg. I keep being annoyed when people call these “suicide activists” civilians. What does the law say about the civilian status of individuals out of uniform, lacking any clear connection to an organized military, attacking soldiers engaged in legal actions? I keep thinking they should qualify as some type of guerrilla combatant, but have Zero knowledge of law in this area. Any one actually know?
Thanks,
June 5, 2010, 7:16 amHGB
ctrees says:
or an american police officer, for that matter
June 5, 2010, 7:30 amArkady says:
“it is likely that the peace terrorists had guns on the ship”
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book 3.82-83: Civil War in Corcyra
June 5, 2010, 7:34 amgray says:
Actually a pretty good account of the raid and the preparations for it from the “activist” perspective is in the NYT.
http://nyti.ms/a48V4R
Also bias does not always mean a person is wrong. I disagree with the OP quite a bit, but his statements here ring pretty true to me.
June 5, 2010, 8:08 amegd says:
These claims are not necessarily at odds.
June 5, 2010, 8:25 amgregorylent says:
just guessing from the tone of the post, think the author is pro-israel .. hard to find neutral voices in this drama
June 5, 2010, 8:29 amAlex J says:
What would contradict that? Loose definitions could be applied to both “well-organized” and “quasi-military.” Most of the evidence points to neither of those. Make-shift weapons and only a small percentage of people violently resisting makes it look like Israel’s assertion needs some more proof before it’s believable.
June 5, 2010, 8:42 amLa Viro says:
It should also be noted that being a ‘journalist’ is not mutually exclusive with being an armed attacker.
June 5, 2010, 8:45 amSee Helen Thomas’s commet that Jews should leave Israel and go back to Germany. If the open opinion of America’s most revered WH journalist it that antisemetic, what actions must the ‘prace ship’ journalists have taken?
Bama 1L says:
You’re thinking in Rules of Land Warfare classifications. They don’t apply at sea.
June 5, 2010, 9:00 amMaryG says:
” Pointing things at a soldier in the midst of a violent incident is not a good idea.”
Yeah, and boarding an aid relief ship, and killing 9 Turks including 1 American citizen, in a time when Israel needs all the allies she can afford?
That’s an A+ plan obviously. ;-)
June 5, 2010, 9:06 amMaryG says:
OOps — left out an important fact or two…
“Yeah, and boarding an aid relief ship, IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS AT 4:30AM, and killing 9 Turks including 1 American citizen, in a time when Israel needs all the allies she can afford?”
Poor Israel. I liked her better when she was a people of the Book, and played by established laws. This fighter-mentality — I don’t think it’s working out effectively for them, despite how many people their weapons can kill.
June 5, 2010, 9:10 amAlex J says:
What she said was insensitive but wasn’t anti-semitic, she just disagrees with the creation the Israeli state. Your comment is the very reason people think claiming anti-semitism is the new “crying wolf.”
June 5, 2010, 9:15 amIchthyophagous says:
Firing the rubber bullets and noise bombs before boarding was a clear mistake. It created a panic.
June 5, 2010, 9:16 amJKB says:
As you can see from the excerpts of international law below, the vessel was subject to capture since they were attempting to breach the blockade and failed to yield to Israel’s right to visit and search them. By resisting capture, the vessels could have been attacked by naval gunfire rather than risking a boarding by Israeli soldiers. The ships’ announced purpose was to breach the blockade. They failed to follow instructions of sovereign warships as they approached the zone of hostilities established and notified by Israel. The ships were subject to capture as soon as they entered the high seas. The individuals on board the ship who attacked the boarding party were not acting in self defense as there has been no evidence of them being in imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury prior to their attack. Clubs, chains, knives, axes, etc. are all deadly weapons and the ship personnel were within proximity to place the commandos in reasonable belief of death or serious bodily injury resulting in their use of deadly force for self defense.
June 5, 2010, 9:24 amJKB says:
166. Nationals of a neutral State:
(a) who are passengers on board enemy or neutral vessels or aireraft are to be released and may not be made prisoners of war unless they are members of the enemy’s armed forces or have personally committed acts of hostility against the captor;
June 5, 2010, 9:33 ammattt says:
Like coriander, and musical instruments: List of prohibited items
As for Israeli options – several reports have stated that the Mavi Marmara changed course after being warned by the Israelis. What was its course when boarded? Had it already diverted from Gaza? This seems like an important point for any investigation.
But why should the Israelis be trusted to investigate themselves, when the IDF is already putting out clumsily fabricated propaganda? IDF doctored account
June 5, 2010, 9:59 amNowMDJD says:
Is it Israel or Hamas that categorically rejects a two-state solution?
June 5, 2010, 10:00 amNocomment says:
As you can see from the excerpts of international law below, the vessel was subject to capture since they were attempting to breach the blockade
This is by no means clear from the excerpt you posted.
There is no international armed conflict at sea.
There was no breach.
There was no attempted breach (until they got much closer).
The IDF actions would seem to have gone beyond “visit and search.”
The “attacking” provision, by its own terms, applies to actual breaches and not “attempted breaches.”
Self-defense against an illegitimate attack is not “hostility.”
etc., etc., etc.
An “attempt” is not an “attempt” until one reaches the point of no return. That didn’t happen here. Maybe at 4 miles out. Not 16.
June 5, 2010, 10:02 amNowMDJD says:
Israelis also have families.
June 5, 2010, 10:04 amNowMDJD says:
It supports a false meme about the nature of Israel.
A majority of Israelis either are refugees from Islamic countries or their descendants. And the majority of European Israelis are born there, and no more have homes in Poland or Germany than you or I. And Jewish settlement in the land has been continuous since Biblical times.
The state of Israel, which was authorized by UN resolution, has been around for 62 years.
So what does it mean when Thomas characterizes them as a bunch of interlopers from Germany or Poland.
June 5, 2010, 10:14 amCounterfactual says:
She doesn’t just disagree with the creation of Israel, she wants it destroyed, which is not the same thing. Does she think that Americans should go back to England? Does she think the Poles living in the parts of Germany taken after WWII should go back to Poland?
To make an analogy, someone may severely criticise the actions of the Italian government, or parts of Italy’s culture without being anti-Italian in the least. But if they start to call for the destruction of Italy and the removal of all the Italians off somewhere to accomplish this, I think we can safely say that person is anti-Italian.
Israel’s claims to be a country are as valid as pretty much any other country. It was legally created based on UN declaration. It meets the practical standard that its people are the people living there. It has an historical claim based on historical occupation going back as far back as almost any country around. Yet of all the countries in the world, Helen apparently only wants to see the one Jewish country in the world destroyed. Why this one particular country …? I guess it is because of her ‘insensivity’.
June 5, 2010, 10:16 amLitigator London says:
Do not forget these provisions of the San Remo Manual:-
“1. The parties to an armed conflict at sea are bound by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law from the moment armed force is used.
102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival;
or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.”
The better view is, I am afraid, that the blockade is unlawful by virtue of 102(b).
The opinion of the UN mission on the ground in Gaza is, I think, determinative particularly in view of the responsibility of Israel for much of the destruction necessitating such reconstruction:
Gaza was receiving about ¼ of the goods and supplies considered necessary for humanitarian or reconstruction purposes.
The blockade is in effect a collective punishment of the entire population of Gaza. That’s unacceptable and the pressure to end the blockade is going to be ramped up.
June 5, 2010, 10:19 amMaryG says:
“When you see Mafia assassinations in the movies, it’s usually two shots to the head. Maybe they assassinated him twice”
Or maybe they don’t yet having the killing skills of the Mafia perfected?
Kinda incompetent as fighters — lol @ getting tossed overboard.
June 5, 2010, 10:21 amMnZ says:
Yes. A very astute observation. Blockade runners never take evasive maneuvers because why would a blockade runner want to evade?
Perhaps we can see if the captain or crew also used the head within 30 minutes before the Israelis boarded. That would be prima facie evidence that the Mavi Mamara had no intent on running the blockade.
Now, there might be some people who will ask why didn’t the Mavi Mamara radio back to the IDF that they were not going to run the blockade. But those people would cleary be Zionists because only a Zionist would ask a question like that.
June 5, 2010, 10:25 amMnZ says:
OK, then why doesn’t the international community advocate a more open blockade that would still prevent weapons into Gaza?
Oh wait…I know the answer to that.
June 5, 2010, 10:29 amPatent Lawyer says:
Well, they would have had to wrestle the microphone away from the peaceful guy telling the Israelis to “go back to Auschwitz”.
June 5, 2010, 10:39 amhaha rimshot says:
Wrong. “In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture.” It is reasonable to believe that a flotilla which sets out with the explicit aim of breaching the blockade are in fact, in the process of breaching the blockade, and thus subject to capture (and thus attack if capture is resisted, as was the case with the Mavi Marmara). Your reading — that they may be captured only within territorial or neutral waters — does not comport with the provision that visit, search, capture and attack may be done “outside neutral waters,” meaning, in international waters.
June 5, 2010, 10:39 amDave N. says:
You’re new here, aren’t you?
June 5, 2010, 10:41 amAlex J says:
NowMDJD and Counterfactual:
Destroy/Destruction in this context, to me anyways, is violent in nature. In this quote she didn’t say that. She thinks there was a wrong (modern creation of Israel) and a fix to that wrong (Israeli citizens go back to there last home country). It is completely possible she believes in the violent destruction of Israel because she has a prejudice towards Jews, but it wasn’t present in this quote.
To let you know I don’t agree with her that the creation of Israel was a wrong and her solution is petty, simple minded, and not realistic. But, it is not anti-semitic.
June 5, 2010, 10:48 amNocomment says:
It is reasonable to believe that a flotilla which sets out with the explicit aim of breaching the blockade are in fact, in the process of breaching the blockade,
No. That is inconsistent with the definition of “breach” and would also render the “attempting” language superfluous (which it was clearly not meant to be.
and thus subject to capture (and thus attack if capture is resisted
Read the statutute again. The sub-section on “attacking” applies only to actual breaches and not to attempted breaches. There are other sub-sections that are applicable to both actual breaches and attempted breaches. The attack sub-section is not one of those sub-sections.
June 5, 2010, 11:16 amEven More Flotilla Links « Random Musings of a Deranged Mind says:
[...] Free Gaza activists’ version(s) here (analyzed/critiqued by Bernstein here) [...]
June 5, 2010, 11:31 amgeokstr says:
Now is there anyone left who really believes a “two-state solution” would stop Islamists from attacking Jews all over the world, let alone in Israel? The new State of Hamas would only give them a more secure location with borders from which to launch missiles into crowded residential districts in Israel. Their stated goal is the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews, everywhere. And after that, the rest of the heathens and infidels.
======================================================================
HaHaHa, yes Mary, that “tossing overboard” of the injured really is a chuckler, now, isn’t it?
The honorable, courageous Islamists were able to manage this hilarious feat because they had perfected the whimsical “tossing overboard” technique long ago, having practiced it on wheel-chair bound geriatric Jews on cruise ships.
======================================================================
That “crying wolf” meme is soooooo outdated. It has been totally replaced in the last 18 months by “crying racist”.
June 5, 2010, 11:40 amJT says:
You again?
you never responded to me in the the last thread where I demonstrated that nothing you wrote or cited applies to 102(a) or (b). The UN statement is about an unsustainable situation. the NSC quote you cites that the attempts to import weaponry into Gaza is part of that situation which much change. You offered no solutions, never responded to the post and now regurgitate the same detritus here.
June 5, 2010, 11:47 ampmorem says:
JT, I don’t believe Litigator London sees importing weaponry into Gaza as problematic.
I might’ve missed a comment where Litigator London indicated otherwise.
As far as I can tell, it’s mostly a leftist thing.
June 5, 2010, 11:58 amHipposGoBeserk says:
Bama 1L
Is there analogous law at sea?
Also, why be s rigid about land/sea distinctions. The analogous terminology would shed more light than the inappropriate “civilian”/ “terrorist” dichotomy.
It does bother me when we call individuals attacking military personnel as terrorists – it cheapens the term.
June 5, 2010, 12:03 pmBarry says:
I’ve noticed a bunch of people who don’t bother to ***********link******** to the applicable international laws. This is because if one actually clicked on such a link, and scrolled down, one would find things about humanitarian limitations on blockades. Which Israel has deliberately violated.
June 5, 2010, 12:06 pmJT says:
you count yourself in that group, right? what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. show us all all your links proving under international law that Israel has deliberated violated humanitarian limits on blockades.
thanks
June 5, 2010, 12:09 pmEvilDave says:
No, she said the Jews should go back to where people shoved them into ovens and gas chambers.
June 5, 2010, 12:11 pmThat crossed the line into antisemitism, or as I am sure she would call it “anti-Zionism”.
.
She didn’t just say. “I think the creation of Israel was a bad idea”. She said “Go back to where you were murdered by the millions”. Slight difference.
.
.
Just out of curiosity, if someone said “When Obama goes down South for the oil spill maybe he should pick some cotton down there; maybe find him a white woman”, do you think that statement is merely “insensitive” or do you think it would be a racist statement? How do you think the MSM and the Democratic party (e.g., Sharpton, Matthews, etc.) would frame that statement?
And while we’re at it, how about the often bandied about term “offensive”. When speech is “offensive” (and therefore presumably “hate speech”) is it merely insensitive or racist?
EH says:
How is it that Israel was able to intercept the Rachel Corrie this morning without any executions or soldier beatings?
June 5, 2010, 12:13 pmlgm says:
It’s encouraging to see a post like this from DB. Ditto for the previous one. Unlike the AIPAC and Hamas crowds, he’s actually reading what the other side says and thinking about how much of it could be true.
Let me offer one piece of clarification in that spirit. Israel makes much of its offer to deliver the supplies once they had been inspected. This was not to be just a weapons inspection, but an inspection for all items on the blockade list: spices, fresh meat, wheel chairs, cement, etc. The blockade runners claimed they were bringing humanitarian items on the blockade list. So far, Israel has not contradicted that claim (to my knowledge).
June 5, 2010, 12:14 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Alex J,
Destroy/Destruction in this context, to me anyways, is violent in nature. In this quote she didn’t say that. She thinks there was a wrong (modern creation of Israel) and a fix to that wrong (Israeli citizens go back to the[ir] last home country). It is completely possible she believes in the violent destruction of Israel because she has a prejudice towards Jews, but it wasn’t present in this quote.
The usual antonym to “creation” is “destruction, yes?
Dude, Israel is 62 years old. I don’t know what fraction of its citizens were born there, but it must be large. Which “last home country” is it Helen Thomas expects them to “go back to”?
Enh. NowMDJD said it better and earlier:
A majority of Israelis either are refugees from Islamic countries or their descendants. And the majority of European Israelis are born there, and no more have homes in Poland or Germany than you or I.
Were I asked to “go back to my last home country,” I’d be in a quandary. I suppose it would have to be Germany, since half my ancestors are German immigrants to the US, and the other half are divided among several nations. Unfortunately, my husband’s ancestors are mostly Irish, so we’d have to “go back to” different “last home countries.”
June 5, 2010, 12:18 pmEvilDave says:
Follow up:
June 5, 2010, 12:18 pmI’d even clear her of the charge if she had said “go back to Europe or Russia. They aren’t committing genocide there anymore”. But no. She specifically chose Poland and Germany the place and progenitors of the Holocaust. She didn’t just throw darts at a map and come up with those areas. She knew what the meaning of those places is.
LK says:
“Yes, judge, my defense is that I am holding one and a half million people prisoner and have them surrounded with a blockade. (Many of these are the refugee descendants of people my grandparents ran off the people’s farms, but no matter I am doing this because only my own safety matters and some of these people have been resisting and fighting me.) I boarded an unarmed ship of civilians trying to break the blockade and sprayed it with rubber bullets and told everyone to lie on their faces. I am not sure where he got the justification to do it, but when a civilian on the ship hit me in the arm with a club — and I have the video tape to prove he did it — I opened fire and shot him and anyone else running around the deck. Good thing I made that video tape exonerating my actions.”
June 5, 2010, 12:22 pmJKB says:
Let us look back at a view when blockades were much more prevalent:
London Litigator: The blockade has a concrete and direct military advantage. Israel provides a mechanism for all required humanitarian goods to enter the blockaded area as well as provides electricity, water and medical care to the civilian population. Thus alleviating damage to the civilian population in excess of the benefits of the blockade. If the UN wanted to do something they would quit flapping their jaws and take measures to ensure that aid into Gaza was not stolen by Hamas. No country, during an armed conflict, has an obligation to permit reconstruction of their enemy. However, we should remember that greenhouses and other productive assets left behind after the Israeli withdrawal were plundered by the population and rendered unable to operate. Unfortunately, the UN and others have proven unable to provide effective guarantees that construction materials or the facilities built by them are not being used to fortify Hamas. Maybe europe should send troops to oversee Gaza and prevent the constant attacks on Israel by Hamas and others.
June 5, 2010, 12:31 pmOrenWithAnE says:
For the dozenth time, maritime law recognizes the right of a belligerent operating a blockade to seize blockade runners in international waters. This much is, I believe, undisputed.
The Israelis wanted to do it at nighttime for tactical reasons.
An essential element of a legal blockade is prior announcement, so none of this is relevant here.
At maritime law, actually, a blockade runner and here civilian crew have the right to resist (of course, most are smart enough not to, but that’s a different matter) just as much as the enforcing navy has the right to seize them. It is a contest of hostilities.
The long and short of it is that, short of any violation of the laws of war (perfidy, piracy) on the part of the crew, they are entitled to be released immediately after taking a deposition.
There exists a state of hostilities between Hamas and Israel. Pursuant to those hostilities, Israel has publicly announced and enforced a blockade of Gaza.
Their stated intention was to land at Gaza and deliver their cargo — that is more than enough to establish that they were blockade runners.
Yup. Fortunately, maritime law allows them to “seize and sink” blockade runners.
Better only if you don’t count the military benefit of keeping Hamas deprived of men, money and arms.
You can think it’s determinative all day but that hardly
Again, the totally dishonest joinder of “humanitarian and reconstruction”.
There is absolutely to be no reconstruction of Gaza until the hostilities cease. Why is that hard to understand? We are not going to allow an enemy entity to reconstruct until terms of peace have been reached, in line with the policies of every belligerent since the history of man began — no nation has ever permitted reconstruction until the end of hostilities ever (and, I daresay, never will in the future).
Essentially, what you are saying is that we should treat Gaza as if it was in peacetime while Hamas can continue to wage war on Israel. We will not — Gaza is in a state of active hostilities. The best thing that can be done for the citizens is a timely resolution of those hostilities, which the world seems intent to drag on indefinitely.
Hostilities are in fact quite harsh on the civilian population, no one would dispute that. Most of the world accepts it as a fact of life that when you war against someone, you harm both yourself and the innocents around you.
Pressure can be put on indefinitely, Israel is not going to concede a war which she clearly won (again and again) because the international community wishes that she lost it.
June 5, 2010, 12:39 pmOrenWithAnE says:
That’s a good defense in a situation where you are explicitly allowed to do so, actually. That you parody the laws of war allowing blockade (and perhaps believe they are unjust) is no matter.
June 5, 2010, 12:43 pmJKB says:
I didn’t provide the link because I have provided it in other comments on this site. I did provide the reference so you could google it. There are humanitarian limitations which Israel facilitates by using their official land crossing for aid entry negating any need for at-sea inspections. Ships simply divert to the Israeli port where they are transported through the established humanitarian aid delivery system.
June 5, 2010, 12:50 pmhaha rimshot says:
But it doesn’t render the “attempting” language superfluous, nor is it inconsistent with the definition of “breaching.” To the contrary, it isn’t superfluous, and is consistent with the definition of “breaching”. To attempt to breach the blockade is to begin the process of breaching it. To attempt to eat is to begin the process of eating — the act of putting food in one’s mouth is part of the process of eating. Likewise, to say that someone is breaking my arm is to say that he is attempting to break it, not that a break has already occurred.
Except it isn’t a statute. And “attempting” only appears once, not in multiple “sub-sections.” You have no idea what you’re talking about. In any event, since merchant vessels may also be attacked if they resist visit, search and capture while believed to be “carrying contraband”:
. . . your point, in addition to being wrong, is moot.
June 5, 2010, 12:51 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Plus the fact that Israel itself is providing much of the needed aid, power and clean water. Palestinians needing medical care are transported to Israeli hospitals for free treatment as well.
June 5, 2010, 12:57 pmDavid Bernstein says:
You have a strange definition of “unarmed.”
June 5, 2010, 1:04 pmpc says:
It might be because the IDF decided that tossing flashbang grenades (noise bombs? really?), tear gas canisters and smoke grenades onto a ship in the dead of night, then shooting people with rubber bullets before boarding was a bad idea? I can’t imagine why people on a ship might be upset by being blinded, deafened and hit with less lethal rounds in the middle of the night.
I think it’s interesting that in one context a flashbang is referred to as a “noise bomb”, then two sentences later a flashbang is referred to as a “stun grenade”. I wonder why that is?
June 5, 2010, 1:36 pmJT says:
riiiight. and there was no violence on the first 5 ships boarded in the flotilla because the passengers (like the passengers/crew) on the Corrie didn’t attack IDF boarding the ship. There are videos of the “peace activists” preparing to fight before the IDF boarded, but I guess facts and evidence are easier to dismiss than propaganda.
June 5, 2010, 1:50 pmsteve s says:
The Israelis were pretty darn sure they had no arms, or they would not have let a chopper get so close. A single rpg, stinger or some AKs could bring it down. Ideally, they wait until they are out of international waters so they eliminate any lingering issues about the legitimacy of boarding. Then, since they know that the goal of the flotilla is not delivering goodies, they could do that by letting the Israelis inspect the boat, you avoid civilian deaths as much as possible. Sending troops one at a time into an angry mob guarantees resorting to firearms. I would.
Ideally, you clear the deck and engage in multiple, simultaneous boardings by boat and chopper with shooters covering. Sending troops down into an angry mob with pipes and chains one at a time should be your last option. If you cannot clear (pepper gel, fire hoses, stun grenades, plastic bullets fail), you send troops in with riot gear including batons and shields if possible. Paint guns? They look like real guns in the dark but dont do squat.
Last of all, the info war. If you wait till the ship reaches Israeli waters, you can publicly announce that a potentially dangerous ship has entered Israeli waters. You announce, on live TV, that peaceful overtures have been rejected and out of concern for safety, boardings will be attempted. I would also suggest trusting your troops here. I would broadcast the boarding also. When the activists attack first, it would be clear that a response was indicated. If they do not attack, you show off the professionalism of your troops.
Steve
June 5, 2010, 1:52 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
Kevin! posts a link to pictures of the dead, many with their families, dripping with sarcasm that “they look pretty murderous and vicious.” Actually, they do. The fact that they have families and have had calm moments in their lives in front of a camera seems to have caught Kevin! by surprise – or he thinks we would be surprised.
Kevin! hasn’t seen enough defendants appear in court, methinks.
June 5, 2010, 2:06 pmwhit says:
which explains the carnage by cop of japanese tourists we see in america.
June 5, 2010, 2:07 pmNocomment says:
And “attempting” only appears once, not in multiple “sub-sections.” You have no idea what you’re talking about.
even if “attempting” appears in only one other sub-section, the point is that the drafters knew how to say “attempting to breach” when they meant “attempting to breach,” and they chose not to say that in the section authorizing attack. Besides, as a I said above, the ship was not close enough to be considered an attempted breach.
“98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured.”
“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;or . . . (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade.”
If the IDF wanted to take advantage of this part, they needed to do two things differently:
(1) wait for an actual attempt to breach and not attack 16 miles out.
and
(2) attempt to capture before commencing hostilities by firing projectiles at the boat. According to that law a resist to capture has to be clearly resisted BEFORE the bullet or cannisters are loosed. That didn’t happen. Here the attack happened before the successful attempt at capture. IDF loses.
June 5, 2010, 2:15 pmJT says:
Wrong again
“if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means…” the flotilla announced to the world that they were going to violate the blockade and not stop unless forced to. That’s a pretty good “by other means” in my book (assuming these rules even apply). Also, the IDF couldn’t determine it by visit and search because the “peace” passengers attacked them. The passengers on the other five ships didn’t attack when the IDF boarded the same way and no one was injured. see a difference?
June 5, 2010, 2:25 pmLitigator London says:
If you do know the answer, then why put the question?
The Head of UNRWA was interviewed on the BBC this morning and he gave specific details of the needs, the road capacity, the number of trucks required and the number of border crossings needed, the port needs at Gaza, the need also to be able to export and also the fact that the long and lengthy discussions between UNRWA backed by the efforts of other involved nations, and the EU etc with the government of Israel over many months had got nowhere.
There is, of course, absolutely no question of there not being inspection of imports to ensure that no genuinely contraband material passes and that the use to which construction materials are put are properly controlled.
The critical problem is that Israel has wished to keep the level of imports down to prevent reconstruction and the resumption of normal business and commercial activities in Gaza, in order to keep the population in a continuing state of utter dependence on aid handouts. It’s the height of stupidity for the very simple reason that “the devil finds work for idle hands”.
As the former (US) head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in post invasion Iraq acknowledged in evidence to the Iraq War Enquiry in London, one of the major failures of that enterprise was the Pentagon (against advice from London) had neither planned nor budgeted for post invasion reconstruction to put the Iraqi people back to work – with the consequence that the idle got involved in troublemaking which in turn exacerbated post invasion casualties of the occupying forces.
June 5, 2010, 2:31 pmAnonsters says:
That’s non-responsive, unless you’re suggesting that Gaza is an independent state.
June 5, 2010, 2:32 pmJustin says:
A lot of these people’s bios show that they have backgrounds in relief and international aid work (and one in journalism), if you actually read the link.
June 5, 2010, 2:35 pmAnonsters says:
International aid terrorists!
June 5, 2010, 2:38 pmLitigator London says:
More correctly, Israel is permitting only about 1/4 of the requiste humanitatian aid, much of it provided by the international community through UNRWA and donor NGO’s, to cross the blockade at the land crossing, denying the passage of reconstruction materials for wholly illegitimate purposes, and in that process seriously pissing off all of the donor countries.
By now, you should have had opportunity to read statements from the government of the UK and just about every other EU state, from the USA and from just about every member state of the UN. If you think that that international community does not have the means to enforce its will and that contingency planning is not already taking in the corridors of power, you may well be very much mistaken.
uch of it
June 5, 2010, 2:48 pmdr.bilbo says:
“(2) A few eyewitnesses in particular an Al-Jazeera reporter, claim that Israel used live ammunition before the navy boarded. It seems to defy credulity that Israel would fire bullets into an crowd of angry protesters, and then drop commandos armed with paint guns one by one into the midst of that crowd. Charitably, perhaps the reporter mistook other sounds for live fire. The other option is that the Israeli navy is murderous, its leaders completely oblivious to world opinion, and even more incompetent than what’s obvious from what we otherwise know.”
“the Israeli commando who turned the battle around and shot six of the nine fatalities. He says that Israel fired warning shots before commencing the helicopter landing.”
So I take it that Mr. Bernstein now agrees that the IDF is murderous, oblivious and incompetent?
June 5, 2010, 2:58 pmmemphismacher says:
Mr. Bernstein,
Do you believe that it should be legal for the owner of a private restaurant to refuse service to black customers because the owner hates black folks?
June 5, 2010, 3:01 pmEH says:
Context? Sight-unseen I’d say that the “noise bomb” was used to apply to the ship as a whole, and “stun grenade” was used in reference to people? Just guessing.
I’m curious to read the news over the next few days to see the strides Israel makes to get the name “Rachel Corrie” out of the headlines.
June 5, 2010, 3:10 pmMaryG says:
“HaHaHa, yes Mary, that “tossing overboard” of the injured really is a chuckler, now, isn’t it? ”
When you think of it in terms of military competence, it is.
Remember Colonel Klink from Hogan’s Heroes? It’s was the bumbling that made him so lovable, right?
In a setting in a different episode, I could see him getting tossed overboard, if he was one of the baddies boarding a boat in international water in the middle of the night.
so lol@ getting tossed overboard. (Still, if you have to explain it…)
June 5, 2010, 3:25 pmMaryG says:
“Kevin! posts a link to pictures of the dead, many with their families, dripping with sarcasm that “they look pretty murderous and vicious.” Actually, they do. ”
So are you suggesting now, that these were … suicide relief workers trying to break the blockade?
Tell me, did they set themselves off, before getting 4 bullets to the head and where are the martyr vids???
No, I think you’ll have a hard time spinning this deliberately courting death by sailing on a ship in international waters and taking non-lethal force to remove the Israeli occupiers from the ship.
June 5, 2010, 3:29 pmTatil says:
Agreed. This is not the first time somebody is trying a blockade during a war. Didn’t the British Navy establish a very successful blockade against Germans during WWI? It apparently caused so much humanitarian suffering that there were riots in some cities. Food and raw material shortages eventually forced Germany to surrender even though its forces were in French territory during almost all of the War. Of course, that means we are not much more civilized than 100 years ago in terms of differentiating between civilians and combatants.
BBC News has a very good radio program available online that covers the incident. It did not seem like anybody disputes the initial parts. Israeli commandoes land on the ship from choppers and boats, they meet resistance by people wielding clubs, some soldiers get captured and taken downstairs, etc. Then all hell breaks lose. Israel says they fired only at the people posing a threat, activists say there were bullets flying in every direction and killed many people who were just yelling, but not part of the scuffle. Israel has confiscated footage taken by the activists and is refusing to release them, so it is quite probable that at least some of the firing was done without really aiming at any particular threat. (It is hard to take the word of the side that is withholding evidence.) Of course, even if we take the words of the activists, many will call them unavoidable or unfortunate collateral damage and move on.
June 5, 2010, 3:29 pmJaimeInTexas says:
I also saw the video where a onboard reporter claimed that the IDF fired first, with live rounds and dropped stun bombs and tear gas canisters. The reporter also referred to rubber coated steel bullets.
So, it seems that the videos released by the IDF ommit the begining?
On the issue of the paintball guns. The IDF commandos appear to have had them but does anyone knows what kind of “paintballs” they were using, whether standard or some kind of a special [military] use?
June 5, 2010, 3:36 pmJaimeInTexas says:
From the link provided by DB:
“He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades.” (emphasis mine)
Here you have the admission for the source of 9mm casings that, according to some, the IDF did not carry.
June 5, 2010, 3:39 pmGoobermunch says:
Generally, warning shots are not fired into crowds, as they lose their effectiveness as warning shots when they start hitting the warnees.
–G
June 5, 2010, 3:44 pmGoobermunch says:
Mary, I would invite you to attack your neighbor with an axe, knife, or metal pole (your choice). Let’s see if you don’t get charged with assault with a deadly weapon (or your local equivalent thereof). Those weapons are not “non-lethal” force.
–G
June 5, 2010, 3:47 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Whose better view? That of a “London litigator”? I’m pretty sure that 102(b) is a military question, and British lawyers and “UN missions” aren’t really qualified to evaluate it.
June 5, 2010, 3:53 pmAlyssa says:
If Palestinians want to kill whoever they want, then I say have at it. I just hate it when they pick a fight and then whine when they lose.
June 5, 2010, 3:56 pmJT says:
this is why we wait for facts before jumping to conclusions. I don’t know where the 9mm not being Israeli started, but the question of whether the “peace” activists had guns is still an open one. from the same link “Israeli forensic experts who examined the ship found casings belonging to a weapon that was not used by the commandos, and the Turkish captain of the ship later told the IDF that the “mercenaries” threw their weapons overboard after the commandos took control of the vessel.”
and when you land on the ship to find, “one of the mercenaries was pointing a pistol, snatched from one of the commandos, at another commando’s head,” I think pulling your glock and responding is a reasonable response.
No one has been able to demonstrate why Israel would choose to “attack” the sixth ship after five non-violent encounters on the other ships, but for the “peace” activists starting a fight from the get go.
June 5, 2010, 3:59 pmDavid Bernstein says:
There’s not point trying to explain things to people who are being willfully obtuse.
June 5, 2010, 4:01 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Because the RC was crewed by non-violent protesters who, engaging in their right to a symbolic act, sat down when boarded. Contrast with the IHH 30 or so IHH activists on the previous flotilla.
Are you seriously disputing that the flotilla was not, by their own admission, attempting to breach the blockade?
They did so. There is video of the IDF clearly announcing to the flotilla that they may either be turn to Ashdod or be boarded.
Refusal to heave is universally considered resistance to capture.
And I suppose you will appoint yourselves judges of what is and is not contraband?
Let’s engage in a hypothetical, let’s suppose that we tag some concrete with a fingerprint and allow it into Gaza. Let’s further suppose that we find that tagged cement inside a smuggling tunnel underneath the Rafah border crossing and into Egypt. I’m curious to know if that factual situation would convince you that the concrete is contraband of war being used to directly further the hostilities.
What kind of madness wants the resumption of normal business and commercial activities during a state of hostilities?
(1) The Geneva conventions recognizes a state of hostilities not of an international character — i.e. revolt/insurrection similar to what is here.
(2) Hamas is defacto in control of Gaza, neither the PA nor Israel exercises any control over the internal workings (except briefly during Cast Lead).
(3) Hamas is defacto and de jure in a state of hostilities with Israel (the former quite plainly due to their own declaration, the latter quite plainly from the trading of missiles/rockets between them.
(1) Reconstruction of a belligerent during hostilities is not legitimate.
(1A) I would love to see Gaza reconstructed and functional after hostilities cease. I would personally donate 10% of my salary to that end.
(2) The 1/4th number improperly mixes genuine humanitarian aid (food, water, medicine) with reconstruction aid. There is no evidence that Gazans lack genuine humanitarian aid to an extent greater than other civilian populations in a zone of hostilities. Certainly they are better off that Britain and Germany, at their worst points respectively, during WWII.
(3) The donor countries can blow steam out their ears unless they want to personally take control of Gaza under an interim peace-keeping agreement. In that case, actually, I would be inclined to let them control the sea and air crossings and police the population and provide security guarantees against Hamas rocket launches.
Interestingly, they have already negotiated some concession from Israel — to wit the immediate and unconditional release of the activists from the first flotilla (which international law requires only after they have been deposed). In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that the Turks asked the US State Dept to ask Israel for that and she obliged (perhaps in exchange for US support in the security council).
OTOH, if the world believes it will get what it wants without any concessions to Israeli requirements at all, they are about to be sorely mistaken. At best, it will be a repeat of the aftermath of Cast Lead or Lebanon II — a lot of angry talk, some burnt effigies and news coverage until the next big story.
2/3, which I’ll be generous and round up to a C-.
Worse still, the British at one point claimed that food delivered to a starving French fleet was contraband of war and seized it! I can dig up the cite if you like.
As I said far upthread, I believe Israel ought to back off that assertion because, in the confusion, it is quite likely that a bystander got killed or at least shot.
June 5, 2010, 4:01 pmBob from Ohio says:
All of the “aid workers” were affiliated with the one, terrorist connected “Humanitarian Relief Foundation” which is also connected to the Turkish government. I don’t know if they were active combatants or just “useful idiots” but they are co-conspirators.
Related, the Turkish ambassador to the US, a fluent English speaker, has now said that Hamas must be part of the “final solution” to the Gaza problem.
It is not possible that he does not know the meaning of the term.
Turkey has changed sides. So what happens to Turks is of no interest to me.
June 5, 2010, 4:02 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
…and…
Would people please stop lying about this? There is not the slightest evidence that “spices” or most of these other items are banned. These “lists” are fabrications. While Israel has indicated that cement and (obviously) weapons are not allowed in, it has never said anything about most of the items on these lists.
June 5, 2010, 4:10 pmgrog says:
Just as you have a strange definition of self-defense.
June 5, 2010, 4:39 pmgrog says:
Can you provide a reference for this claim, like an official list or some sort of refutation from a credible source? I keep seeing wrangling over this point, and those on both sides of it seem thin on anything authoritative looking. (Not arguing with you – I’d like to understand what’s going on here.)
June 5, 2010, 4:42 pmnicehonesty says:
To second DMN’s point, does anyone have a list that isn’t ultimately sourced to the set of talking points distributed by Gisha?
I realize that some people are willing to accept at face value the unsubstantiated claims from a pro-Palestinian advocacy group sponsored by a host of various European governments and Soros’s OSI on the politically-charged topic of Israel. But some people – myself included – would prefer to rely on information that can be independently verified, preferably (but not necessarily) from a less biased source.
(And to note in advance: as always whenever making an assertion of fact, the burden of proof is on the proponents of a given list to show it is accurate. Just putting out a random list of items without any evidentiary basis and demanding “prove I’m wrong” doesn’t meet that burden.)
June 5, 2010, 4:52 pmJKB says:
Haven’t seen an official contraband list but all they are required to permit through the blockade is:
Don’t get to hung up on (f). The United States dual-use items run from pencils to space vehicles. If the military can/does use it, it’s dual-use. Example of non-dual-use, children’s clothing.
June 5, 2010, 5:03 pmgrog says:
Haven’t seen an official contraband list but all they are required to permit through the blockade is: [...]
This appears to come from here, for those like me who are curious.
I would still like to see any sort of credible information on what is actually going on.
June 5, 2010, 5:09 pmOrenWithAnE says:
FWIW (and maybe someone will listen to me since I’ve been a consistent defender of Israel on this particular point), I think Israel ought to make public the list and the official log detailing the determinations on each particular piece of goods that is intercepted and not passed along.
June 5, 2010, 5:11 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Why is this an either/or and not both?
June 5, 2010, 5:13 pmJT says:
they were breaking a legal blockade, were told they would be boarded, had raised (according to what I’ve read) the white flag, and then fought the IDF soldiers boarding the ship. I would say the IDF soldiers were acting in self defense at that point. Why was there no problem on any of the other ships?
June 5, 2010, 5:27 pmMaryG says:
Mary, I would invite you to attack your neighbor with an axe, knife, or metal pole (your choice). ”
I surely will. Just as soon as he breaks into my home at 4:30am.
I’ll toss ‘im out the window. Lol.
June 5, 2010, 6:05 pmleo marvin says:
Sometimes it’s racist and sometimes it’s just insensitive. It depends on the content and the intentions of the speaker. (There are lots of ways for a jerk to be offensive, many of which aren’t racist.)
June 5, 2010, 6:24 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Because none of the other ships resisted boarding with violence. There were some reports of non-violent resistance from the other crew — the usual sitting down, linking arms, going limp tactics which are to be expected and which the Israelis acknowledge as the activists’ prerogative.
June 5, 2010, 6:31 pmED Maven says:
I am amazed that in all this talk no one seems to remember 1962 when, though we were not at war with either Cuba or the Soviet Union, we blockaded Cuba, confronted Soviet ships headed for Havana and demanded the right to inspect them for weapons. Outright hostilities were avoided when the Soviets turned back. So why can we do it, but Israel can’t? (I can’t wait to hear the answer).
Second, since Turkey is so bent out of shape over the [nonexistent] occupation of Gaza, doesn’t anybody remember that in 1974 Turkey invaded Cyprus, captured an occupied its northern part (which it is doing until this day). So maybe, if the Turks are so sensitive about occupation, they should start by withdrawing from Cyprus.
June 5, 2010, 6:34 pmmemphismacher says:
Oh I see, the warning shots weren’t fired anywhere near the folks on deck? Got a source for that?
We’ve gone from they commandos were armed only with paintball guns and didn’t fire until fired upon to sure the IDF shot first but they were just shooting as a warning.
Just like when a senior Israeli official says they want to put the Palestinians on a diet, Mr. Bernstein explains that is just some guy shooting off his mouth and not the official policy. (Nevermind that any objective evaluations shows that the effect of the blockade is to, in effect, put the Palestinians on a diet since inadequate food is reaching them.)
Interesting that when DB talks about Iran vowing to wipe Israel off the earth, he doesn’t view that as just one Iranian politician shooting his mouth off.
I’m not Jewish or Palestinian and I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I must say that the repeated double-talk and illogic that Mr. Bernstein spews, makes me more sympathetic towards Palestinians.
June 5, 2010, 7:02 pmhenson says:
Here’s an update:
Nine Turkish activists killed in an Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship were shot a total of 30 times and five died of gunshot wounds to the head, Britain’s Guardian newspaper reported on Friday.
Autopsy results showed the men were hit mostly with 9mm bullets, many fired at close range, the Guardian said, quoting Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine which carried out the autopsies on Friday. [...]
The autopsy results showed that a 60-year-old man, Ibrahim Bilgen, was shot four times in the temple, chest, hip and back, the Guardian said.
A 19-year-old, named as Fulkan Dogan, who also has U.S. citizenship, was shot five times from less than 45 cm (18 inches) away, in the face, the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back, it said.
Two other men were shot four times. Five of those killed were shot either in the back of the head or in the back, the Guardian quoted Buyuk as saying.
In addition to those killed, 48 others suffered gunshot wounds and six activists were still missing, he added.
June 5, 2010, 7:28 pmHippos Go Beserk says:
Mary,
I was thinking about the obvious problem of your Klink analogy (that the bumbler was on the side seeking to commit genocide), but when I saw how confused you are about who was breaking into whose house – what’s the point.
Lazarus,
It’s either/or because the announced policy of one is the liquidation of the other’s population, while the announced policy of the other is a peace treaty establishing two states with full diplomatic relations.
Pesky things facts. Especially when some one pays attention to them.
HGB
June 5, 2010, 7:30 pmJustWondering says:
We have no idea whether the “warning shots” were regular ammo, rubber bullets, blanks, or paintball pellets. The facts are being reported as they come in. You, OTOH, are jumping to conclusions. The evidence so far is that the “activists” were shot with backup sidearms, which is completely consistent with the Israeli story. And by definition, warning shots are meant to make noise and scare people, but not come anywhere near hitting them.
Actually, what was said was not that this may or may not be official policy, but you can’t say it is because one Israeli official (from a previous government no less) said so, in contradiction to other officials.
June 5, 2010, 7:59 pmMnZ says:
Hmmm…the IDF claims that many of the “activists” were wearing flak jackets. These wounds seem consistent with that claim.
June 5, 2010, 8:02 pmtamberlaine says:
Because interdicting nuclear weapons is exactly the same as interdicting toys and chocolate. Right.
(Also, the blockade during the Cuban Missile Crisis was probably illegal, and it was also an act of risky brinkmanship.)
June 5, 2010, 8:48 pmhurbert says:
The fact that the IDF has seized and refuses to release video and still images contained on cameras and videocameras of the “activists” strongly suggest that the IDF is covering up what actually happened.
But I’m sure that David B. can probably spin why this, too, amounts to self-defense.
June 5, 2010, 9:37 pmGuy says:
Technically we didn’t blockade Cuba, we “quarantined” them, so it’s all perfectly legit, and not an act of war at all, or at least that was the official U.S. position.
June 5, 2010, 9:40 pmChris Travers says:
What amazes me about Israel’s handling of the matter subsequent to this is that it’s become clear that this is an ego game for the leadership in that the primary concern in stopping the Rachel Corrie (subsequent to this incident) wasn’t to prevent the aid from reaching Gaza but to ensure that it reached Gaza through Israeli channels. The Netanyahu administration has suggested that the issue is whether Israel is de-legitimized while Free Gaza is saying this is about not legitimizing the Gaza blockade.
However, legitimacy is something that if you have to assert it, you don’t have it. The proper solution here ought to be to say that they can go on to Gaza after docking in Israel for a search but that hasn’t happened here. Sometimes the sword belongs in its sheath.
This isn’t just about denying weapons to Hamas. It’s about fighting back against anyone in the world who is opposed to the blockade, and it’s an attempt to topple Hamas in Gaza through the same tactics which have proved equally ineffective in removing Castro from power in Cuba (by targetting the quality of life of the average civilian). This doesn’t work because it allows Hamas to put the blame squarely on Israel’s shoulders just as the Castros can blame the US.
Israel has smart people in their national security counsel. I am sure they know this is not conducive to long-term Israeli security in that it erodes support from the EU, without whose weapons and security equipment purchases the Israeli economy would (and has in the past) collapsed. But the leadership is afraid, and so they act contrary to their interests.
June 5, 2010, 9:46 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
Yes, well, there might be discrepancies between an announced policy and actual policy. Ever read the Soviet Constitution?
Very little in Netanyahu’s policy, either now or in his first government, would lead me to believe he imagines any such peace treaty with Palestinians.
June 5, 2010, 9:53 pmMnZ says:
Yes, why doesn’t Israel release materials for anti-Israel propoganda?
June 5, 2010, 9:55 pm33daws says:
“Yes, why doesn’t Israel release materials for anti-Israel propoganda?”
Your assumption that unedited video of the incident is anti-Israel propaganda, demonstrates that you cannot think rationally about this subject.
June 5, 2010, 10:03 pmMnZ says:
I am thinking perfectly rationally. The videos could exonerate Israel of any wrong-doing but still be “materials for anti-Israel propaganda.” Notice the word “materials.” (I.e., the videos would be selectively edited.)
June 5, 2010, 10:37 pmED Maven says:
Guy: If you really believe what you said, please get in touch and I’ll give you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
But I’m a reasonable guy. So why don’t you and I call it a “quarantine” of Gaza. All better now?
June 6, 2010, 1:34 amJeff S. says:
A virulent strain of Communism infesting the island.
June 6, 2010, 2:17 amGuy says:
I’m pretty sure only the U.S. is allowed to do things like that, we’re exceptional that way.
June 6, 2010, 2:37 amLitigator London says:
I concur with what both Tamberlaine and Guy say about Ed Maven’s question.
As a matter of international law, the “quarantine” of Cuba was probably unlawful, since there was no state of war either with Cuba or the USSR. That is precisely why it was called a “quarantine” rather than a blockade and why it was limited to one specific item of merchandise – missiles.
Remember that when superpowers with a veto disagree, the UN Security Council is generally paralysed.
The alternative proposed to JFK by the USAF was massive bombing of Cuba with a postulated probable escalation into a nuclear missile exchange. So the “quarantine” was the least worst option, world opinion was on the US side because nobody thought that the presence of missiles in Cuba was actually good for international peace and security and in the event the USSR blinked first – nothing succeeds like success.
Contrast the minimalist approach adopted by JFK in a far more dangerous situation for peace to the Israeli actions:-
(1) The Israeli action is a fully fledged maritime and land blockade, which is probably (or even arguably) unlawful, it is unsanctioned by the UN and UN agencies are against it because of its Section 102(b) consequences. Were the matter to come before the UNSC, the UK, France, Russia and China would probably vote against and the best Israel could hope for is an eventual US veto (as per usual) and, frankly, one perceives that the USA is getting rather sick of going out on a limb in the UNSC on Israel/Palestine issues.
(2) While the rest of the world agrees with the concept of stopping “terrorists/freedom fighters” lobbing missiles into Israel, it is impossible to argue that the blockade and its consequences are necessary and proportionate.
(3) The manner of intervention was seen as bungled and incompetent. The classic manner of enforcing a blockade is by the use of surface vessels. After informing the flag state of a neutral vessel, one overhauls the vessel and puts a shot across its bows with the message “heave to for inspection”.
Further intervention is only advisable if the vessel refuses to take off way and heave to and even then, only after there has been a delay to allow the flag state to intervene. Remember that the flag state (Turkey) can give directions to the master and put him under pressure to comply which then transfers the dispute into the diplomatic sphere (“inspection granted under protest” scenario).
June 6, 2010, 5:01 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Uh, there is no “peace.” You can’t have a “dangerous situation for peace” when there’s already a war. As you yourself admit, during the Cuban missile crisis, there was no war at the time.
The UN has no more relevance to this than FIFA does. And even if the Security Council mattered, it hasn’t said anything; you don’t get to skip over the vote and just assume it would come out the way you want.
No, it’s easy to argue it. What is it with you and “indefensible,” “inarguable”? Seriously, you claim to be a litigator; is it really effective in the UK to simply declare the other side’s position to be wrong without making actual arguments?
In hindsight it’s easy to see that Israel was far too gentle in its approach to the flotilla, thus necessitating that it eventually escalate to deadly force. But one should note that five of the six ships did not resort to violence, and Israel stopped them without incident.
June 6, 2010, 5:34 amHippos Go Beserk says:
Lazarus,
“Yes, well, there might be discrepancies between an announced policy and actual policy. Ever read the Soviet Constitution?
Very little in Netanyahu’s policy, either now or in his first government, would lead me to believe he imagines any such peace treaty with Palestinians.”
Whatever you think of Bibi’s honesty, polls consistently show that 60%-85% of Israelis support the announced policy of the government. Whatever mischaracterizations I see of Israel tend not to go so far as to show that citizens votes don’t actually drive formation of the government. Israel’s policy, with overwhelming popular support, is for peace and 2 states.
Also, the right way to think about the distinctions between Bibi and, say, Meretz, on peace issues is (1) what security guarantees they require and (2) whether they have any faith in Arab claims to want peace.
HGB
June 6, 2010, 7:47 amAriel says:
Golly gee whiz, I wonder why that is? Could it be that the Palestinians have rejected peace time and time again, along the lines of what “everybody knows” is the solution? Moreover, you’re simply inaccurate on the first term – In Netanyahu’s first term, he committed himself to the Wye Agreement and followed through on territorial withdrawals, showing that if there was a peace partner, he would work with them.
June 6, 2010, 9:04 amEngineer says:
Litigator London says:
While the rest of the world agrees with the concept of stopping “terrorists/freedom fighters” lobbing missiles into Israel,
Oh no they don’t. They don’t even notice it until Israel decides to respond.
Sometimes I think that’s because the Euros think that running into bomb shelters is “normal” for Jews and that terrorism is “normal” for Arabs – but that would be a bigoted view of Europeans even though they often seem to think that way.
it is impossible to argue that the blockade and its consequences are necessary and proportionate.
As usual, no “proportionate response” is mentioned. This is because the Euros believe that Israel should just soak up the rockets.
If the Palestinians were to start shooting passenger planes out of the sky (which is easy once they can get shoulder-fired rockets into the West Bank), the Euro response would be to suggest that Israeli planes land in Cyprus (maybe build a Chunnel under the Mediterranean).
June 6, 2010, 9:17 amOrenWithAnE says:
I believe Israel should release all of them online in their unedited entirety, along with an animated graphic showing their best guess for the position of the commandos as a function of time.
No, as a matter of international law the quarantine of Cuba was an act of war against Cuba.
It amazes me that everyone persists in defining down violation of international law to mean any act of war when international law clearly contemplates that sovereign nations have the right to enter into and prosecute wars.
[ I suppose the forthcoming ICC annex defining the crime of aggression means that those nations signing onto the ICC will have given up this right under such conditions as the annex defines. That has yet happened and certainly hadn't happened when JFK was president. ]
Which reverts the world to the situation pre-UN in which nations settle their differences in a contest of hostilities.
The USSR gained their main policy objective, which was the removal of IRBMs from Turkey, albeit the terms of the agreement forbade them from publicly making that point.
Israel does not need permission from the UNSC to engage in a blockade. Nor do UN agencies have the right to pronounce judgments on whether S102b, only the security council can take action pursuant to Section VII.
So you concede that no condemnation from the UNSC is forthcoming.
Actually, I bet some combination of the UK, France, Austria and Japan would abstain but it hardly matters.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
No argument there, although in the modern times a radio broadcast to heave (or to go to port for inspection) takes the places of a warning shot.
If you are seriously suggestion that, after the receipt of that radio message, the vessel was not properly informed that they must either comply or be boarded (or they can take their chances in a hostility, always an option) then I don’t know what to say.
This is novel, in that in the volumes I’ve read about maritime law I’ve never heard this.
It flies in the face of history, of course, to suggest that during the US civil war a US Navy frigate intercepting a French-flagged blockade runner off Charleston would have to wait for permission form Paris to proceed.
June 6, 2010, 1:11 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Right; also it’s sort of silly to apply such a rule to this situation anyway. The Turkish government was clearly aware of this blockade-running attempt in advance. If they didn’t want the mission to go forward, they already had an opportunity to intervene.
June 6, 2010, 3:23 pmLK says:
If your definition of armed means any object that could be used as a club — there is almost no one on earth that is not “armed.”
If you are running a blockade imposed by one of the most technologically sophisticated armies on earth and you don’t have a projectile or explosive weapon — I think it’s safe to say you are unarmed.
June 6, 2010, 7:01 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
It’s not just that they had objects that “could be used as” clubs, but that they had objects that could be used as clubs and were in fact wielding them as clubs.
It’s not. “Armed” does not mean “as equally armed as one’s adversary.”
June 6, 2010, 7:49 pmChris W says:
Just because ammunition/shells are of the same caliber doesn’t mean you can’t distinguish between them. 9mm @ wikipedia
June 6, 2010, 8:22 pmChris W says:
Indeed… if I remember my OT correctly, Goliath had a helmet, armor, swordm shield, spear and javelin. David had a sling.
Not to mention Ewoks vs Stormtroopers with AT-STs
June 6, 2010, 8:28 pmDanny Black says:
Yeah they were doing so much better in 1933-1945 with “peaceful resistance”….
June 7, 2010, 2:10 amDanny Black says:
Exactly would make them armed then? F-16s? Nuclear-tipped missiles?
June 7, 2010, 2:12 amDanny Black says:
Chris Travers, sorry but what weaponry is Israel dependent on from the EU? When did the Israeli economy collapse without EU support?
June 7, 2010, 2:20 amleo marvin says:
I think he means Israeli weapons sales to the EU.
June 7, 2010, 3:01 amDanny Black says:
leo marvin, that makes more sense. However the fact is that Israel is a net importer from the EU and in the grand scheme of things the EU is a small customer for Israeli weapons:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/israel/
June 7, 2010, 3:36 amDanny Black says:
And they look different from the “martyrs” who blow themselves up how?
Here are some more peace loving activists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieJh4Xdoh30&feature=youtube_gdata
Going to one minute in and catch what they are chanting… “Khaibar, khaibar ya yahood” – khaibar is the site where Muhammed massacred all the Jews after doing badly in a battle. Ya Yahood means “oh Jews” – remember of course these people are just anti-zionist not anti-semitic at all.
June 7, 2010, 4:44 amClayton says:
Israel attacked a ship in international waters unprovoked. The ship did not cross any blockade. The flotilla did not engage Israel, Israel engaged them.
When Somali pirates do this its an outrage, when Israel do it they are “protecting” themselves.
If Iran had boarded another country’s ship in international waters and killed an American citizen there would be calls for war.
And you know, if you’re say, a country with a powerful navy, then I think there are more passive ways to block a ship from entering your country like say, getting in its way. There are ways to deter ships without boarding them with guns.
Also, again, if Israel had simply waited for the flotilla to cross into their waters, this would not be nearly what it is now. Israel took the bait and attacked a ship, they killed people, they did exactly what these people wanted and now they are paying for it. I am certain the flotilla passengers were armed, they were expecting this. Also, they would have been completely in their rights to shoot and kill any Israeli soldier which boarded their ship in international waters, them only having knives and clubs I think shows considerable restraint on their part.
June 7, 2010, 11:09 pmNick B says:
And spending most of them trying to blow up civilians. I’d have a lot more sympathy if there were less documentation of rocket launchers put near schools/un aid camps/etc.
June 7, 2010, 11:37 pmOrenWithAnE says:
They were, by their own admission, blockade runners. Maritime law (see, e.g. San Remo, London, Henry Maine, …..) allows belligerents to seize blockade runners in international waters.
For a blockade to be legal, the belligerent must announce it in advance so that all parties can know where and when they are subject to seizure. No announcement = no blockade (at least as far as maritime law is concerned).
A decision that is left to the enforcing navy which is, by the way, entitled to sink the ship if she does not obey the command to heave to.
It would have been within their rights to shoot back even in territorial waters. Blockade runners are entitled to fight or flee to avoid capture, enforcing navies are entitled to seize them by force if they do not surrender peacefully. That’s how it works.
Now, if you propose to amend the longstanding laws of maritime hostilities, it would be advisable that you do so during a time of peace.
June 8, 2010, 12:06 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Thank you for repeating two-week old talking points that show you simply don’t understand international law. It doesn’t matter whether the ship was in international waters. And Israel did not “attack” it. If Israel “attacked” it, the ship would be at the bottom of the Mediterranean and 600 people would be dead.
Irrelevant. The ship announced it was planning to. That’s what matters.
Somali pirates are not a government enforcing a naval blockade; they are private individuals trying to steal cargo. These are entirely different.
Even assuming that’s true, a country is not required to be “passive” in enforcing a blockade.
Incorrect factually and legally.
They are entitled to shoot Israeli soldiers, sure. And Israeli soldiers would then be entitled to shoot back. Which they did.
June 8, 2010, 9:07 amBrian says:
I think to resolve the situation, all they need is to put a few atomic warheads on an aid ship, sail it to Gaza or Israel’s designated port of choice, and detonate. Everybody wins if the suffering ends. Israel has stockpiles of nuclear arms already, and the world is perfectly ok with the slaughter of innocents, the concentration camp that is Gaza, thanks to our friends, the righteous, perfect, god chosen Israelis. And who are you going to believe?
July 14, 2010, 4:33 am