Hamas and its belligerent supporters are presented as a situation, like a natural occurrence, and Israel as the manager of the situation. Israel may manage the situation well or poorly, as it has done with the flotilla boarding, but only Israel is discussed by these apologists as having any moral agency. Palestinians and their supporters have none.

These were not “aid workers.” They were political belligerents and provocateurs, who, in fact, achieved their goal. There is documented evidence of their singing Islamic songs of victory over Jews before departure, and of their willingness to become “martyrs.” This evidence is there to be seen by anyone remotely open to the truth. We know the provenance of the Turkish organization that cooperated with Hamas in organizing the flotilla. These were not random “innocent” ships and crews on the open sea; the announced intention of those on the ships was to break a blockade being imposed by a national military that is party to a conflict. Despite the uninformed pronouncements of some who wish to believe it, neither the blockade nor the contact with ships in international waters is illegal. The ship captains of the flotilla refused requests by the Israeli navy to alter their course and mission. They always knew that the Israeli navy would not permit them to break the blockade. They always knew that a refusal to alter course would lead to some form of contact. They knew, as any of us would know, that resisting - never mind attacking - would lead to conflict. If they captured or killed IDF soldiers, that would be a “victory.” If what happened were to happen, that, too, would be a “victory,” the kind that “martyrs” achieve.

Israel did not make any of the decisions made by the participants of the flotilla. They made those decisions themselves. If some of those writing in believe in the cause of lifting the blockade – which was the professed reason for the flotilla – if their humane sympathies for the Palestinians in Gaza extend beyond criticism and condemnation of Israel, are they willing to call for actions by Hamas that can lead to the end of the blockade? A declared end to violent attacks on Israelis and to anti-Semitic instruction in Palestinian schools can wait.

Will they call for Hamas to publically recognize the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, and for Hamas to remove from its covenant all incitement to kill Jews? Do they care that much for the people of Gaza? That would do it, and those would be good things to do, wouldn’t they?

Or are they unwilling to make these calls? Are they willing instead, out of their own ideological tendentiousness, to support through their inaction the continuing “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza?

1. “Attack!”

The law uses the word “attack,” which shows you the range of options the IDF had at its disposal under international law. But I would characterize what happened as an interdiction.

2. “Amazing how we justify the deaths of non-Jews.”

So you conceded the legal argument but had to throw this snide little remark in? For one, I’m not Jewish. But you assumed I was and that, as such, I would go to any legalistic lengths to “justify” those deaths. It’s your biases that are showing, my friend. I like every other decent person is saddened by these deaths. In fact, the most gleeful this morning seemed to be some of Israel’s far left enemies, for whom an Israel blunder that results in multiple deaths is still a joyous occasion because it’s an Israel blunder.

3. “My point is that it is a HUGE stretch to ask someone to be concerned about international law when
considering Israel.”

Okay - now you are trying to create a distraction. The issue of settlements is a disputed one. It has nothing to do with what happened here. I personally think that Israel is on the wrong side of international law when it comes to settlements on the West Bank (but not in Jerusalem). See, we don’t all have to be dogmatic. Israel is like any other nation: it complies with many of its international obligations and falters on others. But this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have recourse to international law.

Not so fast, Emmit. Section 67 The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea provides that “neutral vessels flying the flag of neutral states [in this case, Turkey] may not be attacked UNLESS they,” inter alia, “are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture”

The statute seems pretty on-point here, no?

What’s unfortunate is that the IDF clumsily overreacted and played right into the provocateurs’ hands! Why board the thing at night with only night vision video available as evidence what transpired? Why not let the flotilla get closer to the Gaza shore so as to leave no doubt about the legality of boarding? Why use helicopter drops in the first place? And why didn’t the commanders anticipate the lynch mob scenario or that some of the “humanitarians” on board would be seeking martyrdom?

Israel has too many clever and vicious enemies who seek to delegitimize and demonize it at every chance. This means the military and — more importantly — political leadership has to be more careful and thoughtful. Anti-semitic prejudice does animate much of this scrutiny, but that doesn’t mean Israeli leaders should allow themselves one blunder after another in the battle of images and opinions.