Aid ship incident
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177188
Ok, lets assume that the Israeli commandos were attacked when they boarded this ship.
That doesn't matter. This was a civilian vessel, under the flag of a nation(turkey) which is not at war with Israel, in international waters. Israeli interception and boarding of this vessel is an act of war, and absent having come under fire *before* the interception and boarding, a flagrant violation of international law. As much as such a pre-boarding attack would have changed things, there's no way Israel simply forgot to mention it.
Any violence against the Israeli commandos was a perfectly legitimate attempt to repel hostile boarders. The ship was subject to a completely unjustified assault, and they have a right to defend themselves against imminent threats.
Had Israel waited until the ship was in her own territorial waters, this situation might be somewhat different. All they had to do was shadow this ship, at a safe distance to avoid an accidental collision, and board once they crossed the territorial waters limit.
Actually, on second thought, I don't think that would change much. It might remove the objection to stopping and boarding the vessel, but the conduct of the raid? Sending commandos in armed for lethal combat- what you'd expect them to do when boarding a hostile warship- is just asking for trouble. Could they not have ordered the ship to hold position while some riot police were brought in with actual crowd control equipment and training? They sent instead, people trained and equipped to fight a war.
Ok, have the commandos available as a last resort in case the cops get overwhelmed, but sending them in as the initial wave sounds like they wanted to provoke a fight. These are people whose training says "if it attacks me, or looks like it might, it dies". YOU DO NOT USE THESE PEOPLE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. They might be very good at what they do, might be wonderful people, and while not all of you agree, there is the argument that a nation needs people like this(though I do hope this changes eventually). But this is not the situation where they are your option of first resort. That's mental. The only reason to use them as the first resort is flat out incompetence or an actual desire for a violent confrontation. Actually, both, because Israel perpetrating an act of war on one of the few Muslim majority countries they are on decent terms with is a pretty damn stupid thing to do.
Civil unrest in the US. In the 20s, the Marines were dispatched to guard the mail. This was done only after the Post Office and law enforcement were unable to do so after a series of mail robberies. Troops were sent in to enforce desegregation, AFTER law enforcement was unwilling or unable to do so. Troops went into LA after Rodney King, AFTER law enforcement was overwhelmed. Truly extreme circumstances can justify deploying the military in support of law enforcement. But I can't think of *any* situation where the military should be used AS law enforcement, the way the Israelis have done here.
Ok, lets assume that the Israeli commandos were attacked when they boarded this ship.
That doesn't matter. This was a civilian vessel, under the flag of a nation(turkey) which is not at war with Israel, in international waters. Israeli interception and boarding of this vessel is an act of war, and absent having come under fire *before* the interception and boarding, a flagrant violation of international law. As much as such a pre-boarding attack would have changed things, there's no way Israel simply forgot to mention it.
Any violence against the Israeli commandos was a perfectly legitimate attempt to repel hostile boarders. The ship was subject to a completely unjustified assault, and they have a right to defend themselves against imminent threats.
Had Israel waited until the ship was in her own territorial waters, this situation might be somewhat different. All they had to do was shadow this ship, at a safe distance to avoid an accidental collision, and board once they crossed the territorial waters limit.
Actually, on second thought, I don't think that would change much. It might remove the objection to stopping and boarding the vessel, but the conduct of the raid? Sending commandos in armed for lethal combat- what you'd expect them to do when boarding a hostile warship- is just asking for trouble. Could they not have ordered the ship to hold position while some riot police were brought in with actual crowd control equipment and training? They sent instead, people trained and equipped to fight a war.
Ok, have the commandos available as a last resort in case the cops get overwhelmed, but sending them in as the initial wave sounds like they wanted to provoke a fight. These are people whose training says "if it attacks me, or looks like it might, it dies". YOU DO NOT USE THESE PEOPLE FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. They might be very good at what they do, might be wonderful people, and while not all of you agree, there is the argument that a nation needs people like this(though I do hope this changes eventually). But this is not the situation where they are your option of first resort. That's mental. The only reason to use them as the first resort is flat out incompetence or an actual desire for a violent confrontation. Actually, both, because Israel perpetrating an act of war on one of the few Muslim majority countries they are on decent terms with is a pretty damn stupid thing to do.
Civil unrest in the US. In the 20s, the Marines were dispatched to guard the mail. This was done only after the Post Office and law enforcement were unable to do so after a series of mail robberies. Troops were sent in to enforce desegregation, AFTER law enforcement was unwilling or unable to do so. Troops went into LA after Rodney King, AFTER law enforcement was overwhelmed. Truly extreme circumstances can justify deploying the military in support of law enforcement. But I can't think of *any* situation where the military should be used AS law enforcement, the way the Israelis have done here.