Separating fact from fiction

I'm glad I resisted the temptation to weigh in yesterday on the Gaza Flotilla raid because most of what was being reported turned out to be either wrong or grossly incomplete.

1.  Let's start in a place where few if any of the media outlets care to go; the blockade of Gaza. 

a)  Is it legal?  

Simply put; yes.  Actually, in technical/legal terms, it is not a blockade per se since although Israel handed over all of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority in 2005, we retained control of the airspace and borders (including both land and sea borders).  [Note: This, not incidentally, is one of the reasons that our claims of no longer occupying Gaza are relatively weak.]  But if we never relinquished control of the borders and airspace, is it legally a blockade?  Not really. The result is the same (at least as far as Hamas is concerned), but blockading our own coast is not the same as if we were blockading another sovereign state.

While there are many countries around the world who do not support the so-called blockade of Gaza, few except NGOs and 'interested parties' use the term 'illegal' to describe it. 

b)  Is Israel alone in the 'blockade' of Gaza? 

No.  While Israel controls the borders of Gaza, Egypt also controls its borders with Gaza and is a full participant in controlling the movement of goods and people in and out of Gaza.  It doesn't get much press, but Egypt is actually much more violent in the control of its borders with Gaza; shooting dozens of refugees from Africa trying to enter Israel and Gaza... and using lethal force against Palestinians trying to enter Sinai.

Egypt's interest in maintaining the blockade is different from Israel's.    They maintain "that they cannot open Rafah crossing [and any other border crossing] unless the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas controls the crossing and international monitors are present. Egypt Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said Hamas wants the border opened because it would represent Egyptian recognition of the group's control of Gaza. "Of course this is something we cannot do," he said, "because it would undermine the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and consecrate the split between Gaza and the West Bank." [Source].

Update:  Egypt has just opened (albeit temporarily) their border with Gaza in order to "alleviate the suffering of our Palestinian brothers".  They're not complete idiots.  When the sh*t starts to stick to Israel over the blockade, they don't want to be seen standing guard along any of the borders.   

It is worth mentioning that the U.S.government supports the blockading of Gaza and the isolation of the Hamas terror organization.

c)  Is there a humanitarian crisis in Gaza as a result of the blockade as Palestinian supporters claim?

No.  As much as the Palestinians and their supporters have tried to portray the blockade of Gaza as causing a humanitarian crisis, the truth is that Israel supplies all of their electricity, and allows entry of humanitarian aid from recognized organizations via the border crossings it controls.  Whether Hamas allows all of that aid to reach the people is quite another question.    The sponsors of the flotilla were informed in advance that they could save themselves a trip and allow Israel to transfer all of their aid via official land crossings into Gaza.  needless to say, they refused.

There is also a flourishing smuggling economy that operates via a network of tunnels between Gaza and Egyptian Sinai. 

While the idea of being virtual prisoners in Gaza must not be very palatable to the population or the Hamas leadership that runs the strip, the stores there are full of food and consumer products and the standard of living in Gaza is higher than most of the third/developing world.  Additionally, Israel has allowed Gazans access to its own medical facilities for more serious/emergent cases; something that has been exploited cynically many times by individuals and by Hamas.

2.  Next, let's talk about the issue of 'international waters' and what this actually means in the the context of the current situation.

a)  Claims vs. actual practice:

The news media and the players in this latest drama have been throwing around the term 'International Waters', but few people really understand the idea of maritime territorial claims.  The following illustration should help provide much of the vocabulary you'll need to discuss this topic:

I've posted this, not because there is some magic loophole that Israel has exploited (quite the opposite, actually)... but because it bothers me to hear people using terminology that they don't fully understand.

Simply put, every country on earth has a legal claim to 12 nautical miles of coastal waters (from the mean low water mark), assuming they have a coastline, that is.  Some countries (Israel, interestingly, is not among them) claim an additional 12 nautical mile 'contiguous zone'.  Whether 12 or 24 nautical miles, this area claimed by all countries is still open to 'innocent passage' (a concept under Admiralty Law) and anchoring.   But a country really has the final say over what it considered 'innocent'.

b)  EEZ: 

It is worth noting that many countries claim and enforce a much larger maritime claim... some out to as far as 200 nautical miles.  While this is considered an Economic Exclusion Zone and is mainly relevant for protecting natural resources (i.e. drilling and fishing rights, etc.), quite a few countries patrol their EEZ with the same vigor as they do their legal territorial claims of 12 or 24 nautical miles.  Don't think so?  Try approaching North Korea's coast.  Or for that matter, try sailing from Cuba to Florida and let me know how that works out for you.  You won't get anywhere near 12 miles before the Coast Guard boards you.

c)  Current law vs. current practice regarding interdiction

Thanks to Somali pirates, and less recently to the ongoing drug trafficking between Caribbean islands and the U.S., the rules regarding when and how boats can be approached and boarded in international waters has been constantly evolving. 

While most of the Navies currently operating in the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea to protect commercial shipping from the Somali pirates rely on a legal concept called "Hostis humani generis" (Latin for "enemy of mankind") a legal term originating from the admiralty law that basically allows nearly unrestricted engagement on the high seas of pirates, slave traders, torturers and a few other select populations that the entire world has an interest in fighting, sadly, smugglers are a more difficult group to legally engage... and terrorists are not yet officially defined as Hostis humani generis.

For context let's look at the U.S. Coast Guard.  On a daily basis the USCG boards and inspects hundreds of boats and ships on the high seas (meaning in international waters) far from their own territorial claims.  In addition, they approach and challenge hundreds more each day but opt for any number of reasons not to board.  How can they do this so far outside their recognized national claims?

The reason is simple.  On a significant number (but certainly not all) of the vessels that the USCG challenges/boards, illegal drugs and weapons are found.   The U.S. has enacted Federal Laws that allow the Coast Guard to operate and interdict suspected smugglers...  even on the high seas far from its legal territorial claims.  Certainly part of the reason this is allowed is that many of the Island nations in the Caribbean do not have the means to adequately control their own maritime claims (and are sometimes directly or indirectly involved in the smuggling), so the U.S. has unilaterally - and sometimes through agreements with neighbors - taken it upon themselves to act as the cops for that part of the world's oceans.

Israel, for its part, is in a similar situation.  It's neighbors are unable or unwilling to control maritime smuggling that both directly and indirectly affects Israel's economic and physical security.  So when ample intelligence indicates that a ship or boat is engaged in smuggling or terror, Israel often acts in this gray area of international law.

Simply put, when Israel engaged the Gaza Flotilla in international waters, they were not on as solid ground (figuratively, of course) as our supporters claim, nor as legally wrong as our many detractors claim. 

The flotilla had declared it's intention to smuggle goods and people into an area that Israel controls (and has declared a closed military zone), and when contacted via radio and offered the chance to alter course to an Israeli port for the purposes of transferring the cargo to Gaza (after inspection, of course), or even turning around and returning to their port of origin, the flotilla again clearly stated their intention to violate Israel's sovereignty.

Under international law, you don't necessarily have to wait for someone to breach your sovereignty before engaging them.  It is often enough that they say they are going to do it; that they demonstrate that they have the means to do it; and that they actually set in motion a physical act that makes it clear they intend to make good on their threats.

c)  How far from Israel's coast did the interdiction take place:

Approximately 40 nautical miles (although I have not seen confirmation of this from Israel sources).  Close enough to infer intent even without the flotilla's declaration of intent to violate Israel's territorial sovereignty.
 

3.  Now that we have some of the necessary background to discuss the flotilla raid responsibly, what happened... and more importantly, what went wrong?

a)  The 'boats': 

There were five craft used in the so-called Freedom Flotilla.  There were originally at least two more - flying Swedish and Irish flags, respectively - but they did not participate due to mechanical problems.

There were two U.S. flagged craft; Challenger I and Challenger II, two Greek flagged craft; the Eleftheri Mesogeios and the Sfendoni, and a Turkish flagged craft called the MV Mavi Marmara.  This latter ship is where all the problems took place

It wasn't until yesterday that the actual dimensions of the participating ships, and most specifically the ship where all the trouble occurred, began to come to light.  The MV Mavi Marmara, far from being a small fishing or pleasure vessel is actually a small-medium sized cruise ship which is over 300 feet in length.  This is significant because the early reports of the mighty Israel military boarding and shooting up some tiny vessels with helpless crew seem silly when placed alongside the image of a cruise ship with hundreds of people aboard. 

b)  The sponsors/supporters: 

There is a feeling afoot that just because there were representatives of many countries around the world and several high profile participants in the flotilla, that the methods and goals of the flotilla had international sanction and support.  This is only partly true.  The flotilla had widespread, but unofficial, international support... and now that the botched raid has pushed the flotilla onto the front page of every newspaper ni the world, many countries have condemned Israel's handling of the situation.  But condemning Israel and officially supporting the goals and methods of the flotilla are not the same thing.  To officially support the flotilla would be madness for any country that wants to protect its own homeland and coastline from smugglers and terrorists.

c)  The 'peace activists'

The videos of anti-Israel/Islamic incitement before and during the cruise from Turkey, and the revelation that many of the people on-board the MV Mavi Marmara were not 'peace activists' but rather armed agitators (many with ties to what I'll euphemistically call militant Islamic organizations), give a clear indication that we weren't dealing with disciples of Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr..

d)  The Israel Navy: 

"Just before the raid, the Israeli Navy again contacted the Mavi Marmara, warning it that it was approaching an "area of hostility which is under naval blockade", and telling it that it could instead dock in the Port of Ashdod, where the supplies would be delivered through the "formal land crossings" under the observation of activists, after which the fleet would be allowed to leave to their home ports. The Mavi Marmara replied "Negative, negative. Our destination is Gaza"."  [Source]

Most of you know by now that the IDF naval commandos were given impossible Rules of Engagement.  Far from the bloodthirsty savages who allegedly boarded the ships intent upon murder and mayhem, the commandos were sent aboard with paint ball guns - toys, essentially - and told that even those non-lethal tools were to be used only if necessary for crowd control.  They also each had a pistol for self defense, but were warned repeatedly that their lives had to be in danger before they could use them... and even then they would need to ask for and receive authorization.  We now know that by the time permission was received to use the meager lethal means at their disposal, at least two of the soldiers had been beaten unconscious, stripped of their sidearms and these pistols (and other weapons) were being used against the rest of the group.

The senior echelons of the IDF who wrote up and approved these ROEs should be dismissed without delay.  Besides being an intelligence failure of the first water that we didn't know what our soldiers would be dropping into... you simply don't send commandos into action with their hands tied.  Take away a soldier's weapons and give him toys, and he cannot possibly be effective no matter what the mission.  I don't care if the mission is to go bring back Shwarma from the corner store... a solder will do it better in full gear with all his weapons.

Sadly, in this case, the powers that be decided to make Mike Tyson a bouncer and send him out to face an angry mob, forgetting that if he won't be allowed to do what he was trained to do, he will be nothing more than a target... and a big one, at that.

No, I won't join your facebook group.  No, I won't sign a petition or write to my (or your) representatives.  I won't be part of a spin campaign of any sort.  THis was not Israel's finest hour and I'm not going to try to make it out to be another Entebbe raid.  Even though I believe in my heart that Israel was morally and legally in the right, it was a botched operation from start to finish and we now have to see what can be done to see that no further damage is done.

We've seen the grainy video taken from one of the helicopters hovering overhead.  I don't know about you, but you could tell me Big Foot and the Lock Ness monster were both involved in the skirmishes and I'd have no choice but to take your word for it.

I hope that there were helmet cams used by at least some of the soldiers.  But barring that, we'll have to see what the physical evidence reveals once the boats are searched in Ashdod. 

For the record, I am not a scholar of Admiralty Law, but neither are any of the talking heads raving about whether Israel was or wasn't within her rights to board the flotilla in International Waters.  Personally, I am confident that Israel will successfully assert her right to act as she did... and most of the civilized world will agree to her rationale since they (most of all the U.S.) have too much to lose if slapping Israel's wrist will set a precedent that will ultimately erode their own freedom of action on the high seas.

The best advice I can give you is to NOT become shrill and strident.  Those who are condemning us would do so no matter what.  Those who are inclined to wait for the facts have given very measured statements and are waiting to see how things play out.

I know the title of this post suggested that I would reveal some magical formula for separating fact from fiction.  But from here, I am in the same boat (literally and figuratively) as you.  I am reading the same news reports and filtering the same hype from both sides.  What I hope I've given you is enough background information to be able to read the news with a critical eye.