Today is yet another disgraceful day in the history of the Middle East, as people on board a humanitarian flotilla died in the middle of some serious violence between passengers and Israeli soldiers that boarded those ships. The situation is far from clear, but apparently some facts are coming thorough, including some videos presented by the IDF. If these prove to be true, they would largely justify the actions of the Israeli soldiers. If they are not, well, then the Isareli government is in for some serious diplomatic trouble.



If this one is authentic - the time at which this footage was taken should be verified, for example - then boarding the ships by the Israelis was an obvious and legal consequence. International regulations state that when you are being intercepted or boarded by authorities you shouldn't resist. Diplomatic protests might com thereafter; however, the responsibility of the captain and the crew of civilians ships, aircraft, etc. is to ensure the safety of their passengers and cargo. Their mission is not to fight.

Disobeying an interception order is a recipe for sure trouble, and no captain ignores that. Doing so against military forces in a place like the Middle East is very dangerous. Thus, if this video is authentic, then it would prove that the flotilla's intent was not exactly peaceful or that the captain didn not care about the safety of the passengers. If the video is forged, then the Israelis would obviously be trying to hide a crime, plain and simple.



In this case, and again, provided that the footage is authentic, it becomes apparent that boarding soldiers were attacked first with deadly force; no soldier rapelling and shooting at the same time is seen, and if the IDF would have fired first, people wouldn't be on deck yielding clubs, rods, etc. Furthermore: the beating with clubs or rods to one soldier fallen on deck exceeding the use of force required to take him out of combat could easily be identified by the Israeli commanding officer as deadly force, and so, the use of firearms in retaliation would be justified. In other words, people on board the ship could have simply grabed the soldiers; clubbing and throwing them from the deck as it is apparent from these images was, I am afraid, a sufficient cause for the use of force by the Israelis.

Again, the authenticity and context of these images should be verified first, but so far they would suggest that the fleet's intentions were not so humanitarias as one might expect. And one thing that has not yet been considered is the responsibility of the skipper. That is, the ship's captain is responsible for the safety of its passengers, and reasons aside, trying to enter an area occupied by military forces without permission is certainly not safe. Why would a feet's commander or leader attemtp to enter an area occupied by military forces - reasons aside - without permission? If you take hundreds of people as passengers and lead them into perilous territory in such a way, you are incompetent to act as commander. Even the consent of such people to do so is not justificable, for they are not aware of naval operations and do not properly understand the risks ahead. Passengers are not in posession of all facts concerning the operation of a vessel, and international regulations don't contemplate on board decisions as the result of democratic vote. Ships have captains, and they are the ones accountable.

It is yet to be seen whether the Israeli government can justify their actions in this act of violence; the fleet's organisers, however, cannot and they are responsible prima facie for what happened because they led all that people into the area. Activists can have their viewpoints; skippers, however, should think with their heads and not with their passions.

For more videos:



.

Some interesting articles and background on the matter:

And, as usual, the plot gets more complicated and muddy, until the public - once again - will be unable to make a difference between right and wrong, or at least what part of the truth assist to each side:

And then... this...







If Gazans won some degree of sympathy after the Mavi Marmara incident, actions such as this one dillute the effect and, indeed, give a justification to the Israelis. After all this it seems that Israel was right, once more... but the Israelis need to change their PR people, to say the least: only pretty clear evidence of what some of the passengers on that ship were up to saved them from even a worse publicity disaster. Once again, the Middle East seems to be a race between people who seem commited to making the worst of it.









I shall remind you that I don't think that all Israeli deeds are right, but seeing footage and information as this one makes it clear that this wasn't exactly a peaceful boat, in my view.

And now this:



If true and despite the worldwide outcry for what happened in the Mavi Marmara, this would give better supporting ground for the Israeli government. While this:



Will not win kudos for Israel because while essentialy they had the right to board the ships in international waters and soldiers had the right to defend themselves, the fact that the operation ended in a bloody battle in a part of the world that is "international" by definition means that they should accept some sort of investigation on the matter because the world has the right to know what happens within the public, international real estate, so to speak.

Had they stopped the ship within Israel's territorial waters or those of Gaza under administrative or military control of Israel, the point for an international inquiry would be far weaker. This is like a familiar dispute that starts in the kitchen as a private matter, but then continues in the street: if that happens, it becomes a public disorder and of course, neighbours and the police would probably find it suitable to intervene. The lesson: if you are going to board ships in international waters, you better be careful even if you are sure about your legal rights.

Moreover: the fact that a few days after that event the Israeli navy boarded another ship, the "Rachel Currie" in the territorial waters under their jurisdiction proves that they could have done the same with the "Mavi Marmara". In that case, even if violence had been encountered - very likely - the UN and public opinion elsewhere would have had far lesser arguments. In this regard, operational planning was a distaster both on the sides of Israel as well as the flotilla organisers because doubtlessly there were people in those ships that had the intention of fighting and resisting the Israelis, something that, as we saw, they shouldn't have done for legal reasons, but also for yet another one: It was better for them to portray the fleet as a truly humanitarian one. With their actions, independently of Israeli mistakes, things got muddier: Now the Israelis linked them to Al-Qaeda, and that's not exactly what any NGO would want.

And this:



Shows one of the problems within the Palestinian cause: So far they have been largely considered the victims in this particular situation, but by adding fuel to the fire in this way, they are slowly justifying Israel actions and provoking them. The great tragedy for the Palestinians is, in my opinion, that they can't break ties with the kind of groups that attempt to perpetrate attacks in Israel. This is not to say that they should love the Israelis, but so far is it has become pretty clear that violent actions against Israel would mean even more violent and far more destructive reactions against them. they simply cannot match the military muscle of the IDF and the fighting determination of the Israelis.

In asymmetric warfare, a smaller force can deal with a stronger one if its leaders play intelligently; however, the Israelis have proven that they excel at fighting, no matter what. They are not invincible, and they are not invulnerable; however, they constantly perfect their skills and they have the conviction that they are in a fight that is either all or nothing. Hamas, for all the damage that it causes, as well as other organisations, have tried to win against the IDF and intelligence services, to be beaten agian and again. Insisting in the same methodology is tantamount to having a low IQ. Simply put, the Hamas and such organisations are no match for the Israeli armed forces in terms of warfare, so they should stop trying for the sake of the innocent people in-between.

The same goes for the Iranians, Syrians and so on: Challenging the Israelis is a sure recipe for death. I have no doubt that they would even go as far as to nuke those countries if the very existence of Israel would be in jeopardy, so the harder they push for "victory", the closer they get to utter destruction and no peace groups, no public opinion and nothing in the world would be able to stop them, and what's more: If they succed in destroying Israel, what would NATO, the U.S. or Russia do? It is highly unikely that they will allow that so, there is no room for a military "victory" against the Israelis.

If Palestinians and those who have any sort of problem against Israel play with diplomacy, they would fare far better because Israel is weaker there, but keeping a strategy which involves terrorist attacks to "avenge" this or that, the only thing that they achieve is more disgrace for innocent people. In other words: Hizbullah promised the destruction of Israel and where do they stand now? Their precious bunkers were wiped out and Lebanon was extensively bombed. The southern part of the country was razed and in fact, the IDF gained new strategic positions. Hamas started promising the obliteration of Israel, but they are now really begging for a bag of rice. Does anyone need more of this?

My God... these folks never cease to suprise me. Look at these postings: I have started less tha a week ago thinking aloud about what goes on in that little part of the Middle East, so I started to pay attention to the news from there (mainly CNN, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post and Al-Jazeera news, all pretty conservative), and I have to say that their ability to mess-up things can only be rivalred by the Argentinean way of blowing up the economy. Every day - or every hour - there is a new demonstration of violence. And now:









Truly, a week in hell.

And now I am surprised of my suprise, because this is even more surrealistic:





But the bizarre doesn't stop there; it seems as if problems in the region are like a virus of some sort, because on one hand some governments criticise Israel or Palestine for what they do and fill their mouths with humanitarian words, and then, this:

And now more finger-pointing:



An answer:



Something possibly positive:



And if not ramifications, at least very related to this issue because to a large extent the Middle East conflict has a lot to do with the rivalry between Israel and Iran: