Israel's raid on aid ships to Gaza: A deadly ...

')


Log in
Register
My account
Email address
Password
Remember me
Forgot password?

Newsletters
RSS
Subscribe
Classifieds
Tuesday June 1st 2010

Search

Home
World All World
United States
Britain
Europe
Asia
Americas
Africa
Middle East
Business & Finance All Business & Finance
Business Education
Which MBA?
Science & Technology
Economics All Economics
Markets & Data
Culture
Site Index
Print Edition

News analysis
Newsbook
Israel's raid on aid ships to Gaza
A deadly raid
May 31st 2010, 18:52 by The Economist online | GAZA and JERUSALEM
ISRAEL is trying to fend off a wave of international condemnation following its raid before dawn on Monday May 31st on a flotilla trying to break the siege of Gaza. Some nine campaigners—the figure is still uncertain—aboard a Turkish steamer were shot dead when Israeli commandos descending from helicopters boarded the ship in international waters. Dozens more were wounded. Five smaller craft were boarded and commandeered without violence. All six vessels were taken to the Israeli port of Ashdod where those on board were to be arrested pending their deportation.
After months of seeking to draw international attention Gaza’s way, the attack helped Hamas catapult the siege on Gaza to the top of international bulletins and western policy assessments. Hamas leaders pointed out that though Europe and America may claim to be opposed to the boycott, this is undermined by their strong backing for the Palestinian Authority’s rival leadership in the West Bank and the continued isolation of Hamas and its Gaza rule.
Turkey, with hundreds of its nationals on board the boats, quickly announced therecall of its ambassador in Tel Aviv. Israeli officials were straining to persuade the Turkish government not to sever diplomatic relations entirely. Relations between the two countries, for long close allies, haveworsened sharply over recent months.
In Ramallah, Palestinian Authority officials highlighted what they said were a series of recent security bunglings and called on Israel to consider political options before military ones in its handling of the Israeli-Arab conflict. These ranged, they said, from its slipshod military performance in the 2006Lebanon war, thefallout from its assault on Gaza between December 2008 and January 2009 and the subsequent Goldstone inquiry intoalleged war crimes, to the more recent outcry over the alleged involvement of its spy agency, Mossad, in theassassination of a Hamas operative in Dubai in January this year.
Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN,called for “a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation.” European countries—many of the 800-odd campaigners are European nationals—also issued stern public reprimands. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France condemned Israel’s disproportionate use of force.
The initial reaction from Washington was more cautious. A spokesman at the White House said America was “working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy.” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had been scheduled to meet President Obama in Washington on Tuesday June 1st but cancelled the visit and flew home from Canada to take control of the welling diplomatic crisis.
In brief comments from Ottawa, Mr Netanyahu gave his full backing to the commandos. This was the position taken by other ministers, too, and articulated with increasing forcefulness as the day wore on and evidence from the night’s events became available. Israeli spokesmen spoke of an “ambush” laid by the campaigners on the ship, who, they said, had purported to come in peace with humanitarian aid for Gaza but in fact, according to Israel, had been spoiling for a fight and had effectively provoked the bloodshed. Israel claims that they were a Muslim Brotherhood vanguard which had carefully rehearsed scenarios for an armed attack on their convoy. Video clips taken from the helicopter showed the individual commandos set upon by men with iron bars and wooden poles as they landed on deck. Several of the soldiers were hurt badly, two of them shot apparently from pistols grabbed from them, and one stabbed.
Hamas leaders called for its followers to demonstrate in Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority followed suit in Ramallah, apparently to defuse any outpouring of sympathy for Hamas. But dogged by continuing division, both authorities discouraged their political rivals from joining their protests, diminishing the turnout: protests in Turkey and elsewhere in the Muslim world equalled or exceeded their number.
Beneath Israel’s outward façade of support for the troops, questions are already being asked. On the Israeli left, the Gaza siege has long been seen both as impolitic and morally indefensible. But even among mainstream politicians who defend the siege and the commandos’ mission, criticism is being voiced over why they were not sent aboard in far larger numbers, equipped with non-lethal means for confronting angry protesters and taking over the vessels without loss of life.
In Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s head of government in Gaza, heralded “a turning point in the battle to end the siege of Gaza”, and fellow Hamas leaders looked to the attack to quicken the erosion of a siege whose intensity Israel and Egypt had already been struggling to retain. Undermined by a labyrinth of tunnels, the supply of goods into Gaza had increased due to Israel relaxing its ban on the entry of raw materials vital for the 60 40-kilometre strip’s reconstruction, as well as medical aid. Indeed, Israel says it had repeatedly offered to transfer the flotilla's cargo once it docked in the Israeli port of Ashdod.
But in addition to facilitating the supply goods of into Gaza, the ships had aimed to breach an effective four-year bar on travel outside a territory which since classical times has served as a crossroads between Asia and Africa. For now, and despite the international condemnation, that land, air and naval blockade remains in place. But Turkish diplomats, among others, are asking whether Israel could respond in a similar manner were a second flotilla to set sail for Gaza’s shores.
Recommend (237)
E-mail
ShareFacebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Delicious
Digg
more...
Print
Permalink
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers.Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pleaselog in orsign up for a free account.

Sort:
Oldest first
Newest first
Readers' most recommended
1234 …>>Last
1-20 of 155
Von Neumann wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:06 GMT
Ugh, this whole conflict is so annoying. As usual, no side is completely blameless. You can plausibly see how the Israelis could have avoided boarding the ships, or done it more professionally. And the activists shouldn't have responded like they did, given the restraint the IDF showed, as the videos and Israeli statements seem to indicate.
So much useless violence.
If only we had a Jed Bartlet, and the corresponding Israeli and Palestinian leaders of WW season 6...
Recommend (49)
Permalink
Report abuse
CaRaPr wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:11 GMT
It doesn't seem likely that a israeli commando would have his gun taken by unarmed activists, let alone two of them. Besides, to say that "several soldiers were hurt badly" makes the attempt to portray the event as a symmetrical confrotation quite obvious, whereas it should be subtle at least.
Recommend (44)
Permalink
Report abuse
kroptkin wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:14 GMT
The urgent question poised is whether international public opinion will allow the siege of Gaza to continue. I claim that the moral questions need to be decoupled from the political ones. The siege of Gaza is punishment for the people for electing representatives of their choice. I hope The Economist will investigate the morality and success rates of medieval sieges to affect political change.
Recommend (87)
Permalink
Report abuse
imcampos wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:17 GMT
On one side, professional, highly trained, albeit paranoid, armed forces. On the other, activists, well intended civilians, assorted journalists, radical protesters, you name it. Typically middle-eastern. But the responsibility to confront with restraint and with the adequate choice of weapons lies squarely with the professionals. Terrible handling, terrible PR.
Recommend (103)
Permalink
Report abuse
Tinelva wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:19 GMT
Is anybody still pretending these were "peace activists"?
These terror supporters attacked the soldiers boarding the ship with iron bars, knives, and clubs as soon as they got on board.
Just look it up on youtube.
The result - 9 dead and many wounded.
Great job, Hamas.
Recommend (68)
Permalink
Report abuse
Silobis wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:19 GMT
How can a country with less than 8 million people do such a thing? I mean the holocaust ended 65 years ago, they have no justification now.
Recommend (83)
Permalink
Report abuse
Froy'' wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:20 GMT
It's really weird to see how Israel is digging its own tomb. Gratuitous acts of brutality and lawlessness like this just boost the growing calls for boycott against the Israeli regime. It is clear for all to see now that Israel has lost any moral standing it may have had. It has become a violently paranoid rogue state on a mad race towards self-destruction. But maybe the South African medicine will cure its insanity. That's what it'll be getting, anyway.
Recommend (148)
Permalink
Report abuse
Kursato wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:31 GMT
If your name is Israël you can do whatever you like:
- You can have 200 nukes without signing the NPT treaty or hanivng inspections from IAEA + you can say to other countries that they cannot have nuclear energy...(isnt that hypocrit?)
- You can use biological and chemical weapons on civilians (Israel is not a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) also) without consequences.
- You can make illegal copies of pasports of other (even allies) countries to kill people
- You can make a open ghetto of a big piece of land....
The list is long....you can go on as long as you wish.. to make the story short..
You can do a lot of things that are immoral and wrong if you name is ISRAEL and you got friens like the AIPAC in the US
Recommend (170)
Permalink
Report abuse
Veritatem Cognoscere wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:42 GMT
Von Neumann wrote:
"Ugh, this whole conflict is so annoying. As usual, no side is completely blameless."
I know what you mean. Based on recent released video from the Israeli army I am confused over some decisions. First, why a night commando raid? Wouldn't it be easier and more sensible to let the navy board it in broad daylight instead?
And there doesn't seem a doubt that the passengers attacked the soldiers. The idea that commandos firing first unprovoked is a ridiculous notion, considering they knew they were boarding a humanitarian vessel and disciplined soldiers know fully well to place weapons on safety always.
And since when were bats and other various weapons allowed on a humanitarian ship where any arms aren't allowed on-board?
Indeed, this is becoming quite a mess.
Recommend (50)
Permalink
Report abuse
David Hadden wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:42 GMT
Kroptkin:
How can Israel besiege Gaza when Gaza shares a significant border with Egypt? The Israelis offered to let all the aid stuff go through one of its ports, after inspection; the activists refused.
Recommend (35)
Permalink
Report abuse
True Gosal wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:46 GMT
Did I hear "U.S. President refuses to condemn Israel" similar to "Chinese PM refuses to condemn North Korea"?
Nope. If not for the US support, Israel would not go commando like this. Well, this is the way of the world today. Big countries pick and chose who they would like to support (blindly, of course). When would we ever see peace?
Recommend (53)
Permalink
Report abuse
Xt1801 wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:47 GMT
Bravo Hamas,
You have been too long on the sidelines. Now you are number 1 and you managed this without even losing one of your own. Great job, worth one Goebels and some! The real message though is:
don't f...k with Israel!
Recommend (11)
Permalink
Report abuse
godix wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:51 GMT
The odd thing about this incident is watching peoples reactions. Some instantly jump to Israels defense while others instantly condemn Israel. I think it's far more reasonable to get the facts before condemning either side. The incident happened less than 24 hours ago, the people who deplore the loss of life and want a swift investigation so it can be determined who's at fault are right. Before blame can be assigned, facts need to be determined. Anyone who instantly jumps to one side or another at this point exposes themselves as the being more interested in their biases than they are in facts.
That being said, from the information that's come out so far, I strongly suspect Israel didn't expect violence. Due to past history and that this was an aid ship, they probably expected little resistance. So they sent too few troops on board and had no non-lethal contingency plans. Ironically, if they had expected violence they could have been prepare with non-lethal methods and the death toll would have been smaller or non-existent. Turns out they were attacked severely enough that they responded with the only tools they had, which lead to the deaths. Which, if true, would indicate both sides are to blame although Israel would have far more responsibility since it was the result of their poorly thought out and planned military action. However as I said above, the facts aren't out yet. I'm basing my opinion on what is known at the moment, but it's entirely possible further facts will change my mind.
Recommend (60)
Permalink
Report abuse
Froy'' wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:52 GMT
David Hadden:
"How can Israel besiege Gaza when Gaza shares a significant border with Egypt?"
Answer: with the complicity of the Egyptian despot Hosni Mubarak, long time on the US payroll and always subservient to Israel's demands.
"The Israelis offered to let all the aid stuff go through one of its ports, after inspection; the activists refused."
Correction: Israel offered to let in all the aid it deemed acceptable, which could perfectly mean "nothing", knowing the precedents. In any case, as the UN has made perfectly clear, the blockade is illegal and even possibly a war crime, so foreign countries shouldn't be expected to comply with such a criminal policy. One of the aims of the flotilla was precisely to break the siege and encourage others to bring in necessary goods through direct channels, instead of allowing Israel choose the diet of the Gazans.
Recommend (57)
Permalink
Report abuse
True Gosal wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:53 GMT
David Hadden:
Yes, Egypt play some part in the siege of Gaza by closing the border between Egypt and Gaza but what makes the whole thing insane is that Isreal came to international waters to board this ship! Wonder if this is any different from Somali pirates?
Recommend (36)
Permalink
Report abuse
Froy'' wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:56 GMT
godix, I'm afraid the Israeli troops are not as professional as they want to make us think. Hizbollah can testify to that.
Recommend (17)
Permalink
Report abuse
El Toro Es Guapo wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:57 GMT
I love the language used by Isreali diplomats: "flotilla of Hate", " transporting terrorist". All that was missing was "anti-semit".
Shame on them!
In international waters no less.
What a bunch of renegade pirates!
Recommend (75)
Permalink
Report abuse
mandy jean cole wrote:
May 31st 2010 9:59 GMT
Come on please..The Israelis have every right to search these ships for weapons.If the ships had nothing to hide why the confrontation with the Israeli commandos ?..At least wait & see before we become Israels judge, jurors & executioners ? MJC
Recommend (26)
Permalink
Report abuse
imcampos wrote:
May 31st 2010 10:00 GMT
The video on youtube shows inequivocally that the commandos where indeed attacked by the supposedly peaceful civilians.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atzlZT3HuyM
But will someone please tell me what kind of military strategists would expose their soldiers in such a ridiculously naïve one-by-one disembarking from a helicopter onto a potentially hostile marine vessel? Again, as in any such operation, the responsibility for using restraint and for choosing the adequate choice of weapons lies squarely with the professional armed forces of Israel. The fact that radical civilians were able to maim Israeli soldiers with clubs and chairs is indicative of incompetence, to say the least.
Recommend (31)
Permalink
Report abuse
EuBram wrote:
May 31st 2010 10:03 GMT
Please, wrong mode of operation big time Israel. Protesters can be shot by rubber bullets, warning shots above their head,... Israel is becoming the monster they never wanted to be. Another axe of evil: unauthorized weapons of mass destruction (Atom bombs, phosphor bombs in Ghaza, they never sign international weapon agreements,..), suppressing Gaza as a ghetto, they expand their boundaries by brute force and army. They are so lucky that they have connections all over the world, if they would be on the 'other side', they would have been invaded already.
Recommend (49)
Permalink
Report abuse
1234 …>>Last
1-20 of 155
Comment (155)
Recommend (237)
E-mail
ShareFacebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
Delicious
Digg
more...
Print
Permalink
About Newsbook
In this blog, our correspondents respond to breaking news stories and provide comment and analysis. The blog takes its name from newsbooks, the 16th-century precursors to newspapers, which covered a single big story, such as a battle, a disaster or a sensational trial
RSS feed
Advertisement
')
Economist blogs
BabbageBagehot's notebookBanyan's notebookButtonwood's notebookCharlemagne's notebookDemocracy in AmericaEastern approachesFree exchangeGulliverLexington's notebookNewsbook
Products & events
Stay informed today and every day
Subscribe to The Economist's free e-mail newsletters and alerts.
Get e-mail newsletters
Subscribe to The Economist's latest article postings on Twitter
Follow The Economist on Twitter
See a selection of The Economist's articles, events, topical videos and debates on Facebook.
Follow The Economist on Facebook
Advertisement
')
The Economist welcomes your thoughts
We are making continuous improvements to The Economist website and are interested in your thoughts.
Please leave your feedback.
Classified ads
')
')',1)">
')',2)">
')',3)">
') ',5)">
')',4)">
About Economist.com
About The Economist
Media directory
Staff books
Career opportunities
Contact us
Subscribe
[+] Site feedback
Copyright ©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2009. All rights reserved.
Advertising info
Legal disclaimer
Accessibility
Privacy policy
Terms & Conditions
Help
Feedback
Click here to
rate this page