demagogue on 2/6/2010 at 23:27

---

I'm not sure this will add much opinion-wise, but I think it's good to keep a few points in context. [Edit: responding roughly to SE's last post, but they're supposed to be general points not directed at anyone anyway.]

(1) This isn't the first blockade-run by a convoy. There's been a half dozen or so, increasingly large. This is something that's been building up for years. The first few runs Israel allowed through. As more went through, it flaunts the blockade, and it's that part that makes it more imperative to stop. Not to justify anything (far from it), but to understand what Israel thinks the stakes are.

(2) The reason, as I understood the article, that this became a fiasco was precisely because they *couldn't* net the propellers like their standard procedure was because this ship was too large to do that. It would just shred the net. (Remember they *did* propeller-net all the other ships in the convey, including all past times; this was the only one they boarded in this manner). Allegedly the only way they could stop it was literally helicopter commandos on-board (which still begs some questions, but at least distinguishes it as why this case was special.)

(3) As for SE's other suggestions, I'm always a fan of creative alternative thinking, but at least the ones listed here don't fly well I think. Not sure blocking a ship works (moving bow vs. stationary broadside=bow always wins; bow into aft doesn't sound too promising for the aft either). Re: Israeli water; that's 12 miles. As I understood their rationale, they were protecting the blockade, not worried as much about *this* convoy per se; and a blockade couldn't function with only a 12 mile notice (a ship could reach land before anything could even get out to it). But anyway, I don't think it would make a moral or legal difference even if they did wait. It would have been just as much of a fiasco if violence broke out <12 miles in, (and waiting for them to reach shore is out). As for boarding less aggressively, not sure that would have made any difference either because...

(4) The theory I'm finding persuasive is that the activists were planning, in the case of confrontation, on the tried & true tactics of intifada. It's practically the SOP of confrontation with Israeli forces to come at them with non-lethal (looking) force, rocks and chairs, putting the soldiers in a tough situation because whatever response soldiers take looks bad, and it's hard to get control. As one of my more right-wing-nut professors put it, "Even *I* wouldn't shoot them", and as his class made clear, intifada works. It puts as much political pressure on Israel than lethal violence and avoids some shortcomings (not least, soldiers really *shouldn't* shoot at non-lethal force). If there was a breakdown in planning, my thinking is that the activists didn't foresee that intifada is a tactic for the streets, where people can scatter, pelt soldiers from behind cars, non-lethal means stay non-lethal, and they can run off if they have to. Intifada tactics on a close-quarters ship is asking for disaster. But I (currently, subject to good counter-arguments/info) find it persuasive that intifada tactics were contemplated and best explain why shit went down.

(5) Then all of this is aside from the original point that me and RBJ were making that, at the end of the day, the responsibility lies with the trained & armed military professionals to stage any operation responsibly, and when shit goes down they should be held to account (willful ignorance not being an acceptable excuse).

(6) Then there's the point that any military action is culpable when the underlying rationale is illegal (the blockade). I don't have time to make a full answer, but I think generally speaking the law of armed conflict doesn't like this kind of argument because it mixes jus ad bellum (legality of going to war) & jus in bello (legality of behavior in war) inquiries, which can have perverse consequences. One reason is because *all* use of force needs to be subject to clear legal standards, whether it's authorized or not, and separating the inquiries lets you do that more transparently. The best argument you come at them is that the use of force was wholly disproportional to its military purpose. Then that argument needs more filling out.

(7) I have more to say about the legality of the blockade itself and how it intersects with the political demands, but may have to get back to it in a later post b/c of time. The punchline is like my previous post. There's a good case against its legality taking the ICJ case on the Wall as precedence, in the law of occupation, humanitarian law, and on self-determination grounds, but it'd take a full analysis to do justice to it, which I haven't seen yet so I can't say for sure how it plays out. But, anyway, such a case also needs to be conscious of its context. The purpose of international law is always to facilitate the normalization of relations; and if your "law" can't do that, can't normalize relations (a problem specific to int'l law, not domestic law), like you're up in an ivory tower looking down and proclaiming the law on high, it's going to be somewhat lame in its application (even though it's still important to always clarify where the law stands). But to have real compliance pull, which int'l law can't really live without (another difference to domestic law), the legal case against the blockade should come in hand with a political route to normalize the situation along the shared border, to offer a legal route to what the policy is about. (I.e., something has to address Hamas's effective control of Gaza, the rocket situation, self-determination, etc., on the ground, or it's all just an academic declaration.) So you need to think more functionally doing this stuff. What's the functional problem at the root and how do we make progress on it? In other words, keep your eyes on the prize and don't let "events" derail the normalization process, since the il/legality of the former means little to nothing without staying on track with the latter.

More to say, but gotta run.

Rug Burn Junky on 3/6/2010 at 00:02

---

The problem is that you lack the ability to focus properly. You're unable to concede to basic reality and engaging in poorly thought tangents. In short, you seem to be distracted by shiny things.

Yes, indeed, every aspect of this has a preceding cause. But even if the Israelis are not the initial aggressors, eventually their tactic of engaging, escalating and ratcheting up of tension means they've given up any right to say "But they started it!!" as though they are simply passive victims. I've been consistent in that through out this thread.

I'm happy to ignore you, so long as you stop saying ignorant shit. Or better yet, why don't you simply retract your probes and scuttle off to your homeworld where your ignorance is tolerated, or possibly even celebrated?

Jokerman on 3/6/2010 at 00:13

---

So if you won't agree to shut your trap and ignore me, can I at least call you Mr. Mumble?

And I'm sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Mumble, but the only thing you were consistent about was calling me an ignorant.

Now fuck off, fool.

Jokerman on 3/6/2010 at 00:25

---

:laff:

Jokerman on 3/6/2010 at 01:19

---

Oh, don't worry about that , wanker, that's basically the plan. I love lurking in this crazy place. Never have I seen a place with so many aggressive folks who are so sensitive when their aggression backfires, leading to so many derailed threads that it looks like a giant trains' graveyard.

Granted, I don't lurk here just for the sheer abundance of emotional lunacy, there are many smart/ funny / cool posters as well. Though sadly, you are not one of them.