Britannia Radio

Terrorists on Boats  by Dan Illouz

A few weeks ago, organizers of a flotilla to Gaza announced they would defy an Israeli security closure of maritime traffic to the Gaza strip. This closure was meant to stop Hamas from receiving weapons delivered from the sea. The organizers claimed they wanted to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza strip.
A few days before the flotilla was meant to leave to Gaza, Israeli officials announced that if the organizers allowed the aid to be brought in through regular permitted channels, as it is done on a daily basis, Israel will itself deliver the aid to the Gaza strip. The organizers refused. It was now clear to all that what mattered more to these organizers was the message they were trying to communicate rather than the actual aid they were bringing to the Palestinians. They wanted to portray the Gaza strip as devoid of humanitarian aid, even while there is constant humanitarian aid entering the strip. They wanted to portray Israel as an evil country “putting Palestinians in ghettos”, even while Israel is trying its best to help the Palestinians not bear the consequences of its evil leadership.
This morning, after many attempts from Israel to avoid confrontation, the flotilla purposely looked for confrontation and started moving towards Israel. While I already had my disagreement with the flotilla at this time, while I would have been active trying to undo the blemish it would try to create on Israel’s image, I would still accept the fact that such actions are within the parameters of acceptable international activism. Non-violent defiance is acceptable. In this case, it was stupid. It was defying a situation which did not exist. However, it was still acceptable.
There were six ships on this flotilla. Five of those ships stayed within the realm of the acceptable. They defied Israel, refused to be brought to Ashdod willingly or for their aid to be brought to Gaza through other means. Still, they remained non-violent. On those five ships, no one was injured. No one was killed. Everything remained peaceful as the IDF had hoped.
 
On the sixth ship, however, soldiers were met with pre-planned violence. During the interception of the ships, the “demonstrators” on board attacked the IDF naval personnel with live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs. One of the soldiers got his weapon stolen. Fearing for their lives, IDF soldiers did what they were supposed to do: they defended themselves. In that process, 10 people died on the ship.
The violent individuals on that sixth ship had pre-planned this very scenario. Everyone knows that when confronted with live-fire, soldiers will respond with live fire and that people will be killed. Therefore, why would a “human rights” activist engage in such behaviour? Well, quite simple, unlike the individuals on the other ships which remained within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour, those violent individuals engaged in the tactics employed by suicide bombers and terrorists. They knew that if they opened fire, the well trained IDF would have the upper hand and that they was a very high chance that they would giving away their lives. Still, the only logical explanation is that they wanted to force IDF soldiers into killing them because they could then turn into martyrs, make Israel look bad, and help “the Palestinian cause”. This is precisely the tactics of terrorists and suicide bombers.
 
Do not be fooled by those terrorists! The IDF did exactly the right thing! If a soldier feels that his life or the lives of his fellow soldiers are threatened, then he has the obligation to respond forcefully, to defend his life even at the cost of his ennemy’s life. That is the moral thing to do. When those people opened fire on the soldiers, they had become dangerous ennemies! The IDF did not enter the boat hoping to engage in a violent ordeal, it was hoping for a peaceful scenario. The IDF had NOTHING to gain from a violent ordeal. However, when the terrorists on boat decided to escalade the situation, the IDF had no choice but to respond forcefully.
 
Once again, the world will look at Israel and will start blaming it for what happened today. In truth, the only people to blame are those who escalated the conflict from a simple peaceful confrontation to a confrontation with live fire, a confrontation where it was clear people would get killed. Let us not be fooled by those terrorists who want us to blame Israel for their actions! Let’s blame the ones who are truly guilty!

 
 
 

The Gaza Flotilla and the Maritime Blockade of Gaza
Legal Background – 31 May 2010... 
 
re-posted with permission of author, Richard Mitton:

1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts ofneutral States.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade hasbeen declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that theprotesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given
the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defence to fend off such attacks.