IDF foils attack close to Gaza

[donsutherland1]

From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Israeli Navy commandos prevented a terror attack on Monday morning, when a unit of heavily armed Palestinian frogmen was intercepted in the Nahal Aza area...

According to IDF, the size of the unit and equipment it was carrying proved that a large scale attack had been planned, and only the commandos' quick, effective response prevented a disaster.

This foiled terrorist operation highlights the security threat posed by terrorist organizations from within the Gaza Strip and the need to limit their ability to obtain weapons and other materials that they could use to strengthen their capabilities. In other words, it reaffirms the need to maintain security measures, including the maritime blockade. Indeed, without a blockade, it is plausible that the terrorists would have slipped away from the Gaza Strip undetected.

 

[American]

From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Israeli Navy commandos prevented a terror attack on Monday morning, when a unit of heavily armed Palestinian frogmen was intercepted in the Nahal Aza area...

According to IDF, the size of the unit and equipment it was carrying proved that a large scale attack had been planned, and only the commandos' quick, effective response prevented a disaster.

This foiled terrorist operation highlights the security threat posed by terrorist organizations from within the Gaza Strip and the need to limit their ability to obtain weapons and other materials that they could use to strengthen their capabilities. In other words, it reaffirms the need to maintain security measures, including the maritime blockade. Indeed, without a blockade, it is plausible that the terrorists would have slipped away from the Gaza Strip undetected.

I wonder how this ties in with the recent flotilla incident.

 

[donsutherland1]

I wonder how this ties in with the recent flotilla incident.

I'm not sure. It could be purely coincidental. On the other hand, the terrorists might have believed that Israel had been distracted by the international criticism following the incident and perceived an opportunity to carry out an attack. There could also be a chance that at least some involved in the flotilla had passed on information to Gaza's terrorist network concerning positioning of Israeli naval forces at the time the flotilla was stopped, etc. Unfortunately, Israel released all persons from the flotilla, even those who were involved in the violence. While such a move lowered international pressure somewhat, I believe it was a mistake. Those involved in the violence should have been prosecuted and those who possessed material information should have been held until Israel had a full understanding as to what the flotilla was seeking to accomplish, with whom it was communicated, what information it was disseminating, etc.

 

[washunut]

I'm not sure. It could be purely coincidental. On the other hand, the terrorists might have believed that Israel had been distracted by the international criticism following the incident and perceived an opportunity to carry out an attack. There could also be a chance that at least some involved in the flotilla had passed on information to Gaza's terrorist network concerning positioning of Israeli naval forces at the time the flotilla was stopped, etc. Unfortunately, Israel released all persons from the flotilla, even those who were involved in the violence. While such a move lowered international pressure somewhat, I believe it was a mistake. Those involved in the violence should have been prosecuted and those who possessed material information should have been held until Israel had a full understanding as to what the flotilla was seeking to accomplish, with whom it was communicated, what information it was disseminating, etc.

I do not think Israel had any choice. The Obama administration has them by the throat. I think that much of what has happened recently, including the flotilla and turkey's actions stem from what the world sees coming out of Washington. I see you are from NY, I wonder if supporters will continue to vote in Democratic senators that stand idly by while Israel is being sold down the river.

 

[jallman]

From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Israeli Navy commandos prevented a terror attack on Monday morning, when a unit of heavily armed Palestinian frogmen was intercepted in the Nahal Aza area...

According to IDF, the size of the unit and equipment it was carrying proved that a large scale attack had been planned, and only the commandos' quick, effective response prevented a disaster.

This foiled terrorist operation highlights the security threat posed by terrorist organizations from within the Gaza Strip and the need to limit their ability to obtain weapons and other materials that they could use to strengthen their capabilities. In other words, it reaffirms the need to maintain security measures, including the maritime blockade. Indeed, without a blockade, it is plausible that the terrorists would have slipped away from the Gaza Strip undetected.

Good for Israel; prevention certainly goes a long way toward the security of their borders and curbing the need to respond with violence. I hope they prosecute these militants to the full extent of the law.

 

[Apocalypse]

The same commandos who've taken out the four terrorists were on the Mavi Marmara.

 

[washunut]

The same commandos who've taken out the four terrorists were on the Mavi Marmara.

Are you surprised that Obama has not asked the secrity council to investigate how these terrorists were able to leave Gaza without Hamas knowing???

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

I'm not sure. It could be purely coincidental. On the other hand, the terrorists might have believed that Israel had been distracted by the international criticism following the incident and perceived an opportunity to carry out an attack. There could also be a chance that at least some involved in the flotilla had passed on information to Gaza's terrorist network concerning positioning of Israeli naval forces at the time the flotilla was stopped, etc. Unfortunately, Israel released all persons from the flotilla, even those who were involved in the violence. While such a move lowered international pressure somewhat, I believe it was a mistake. Those involved in the violence should have been prosecuted and those who possessed material information should have been held until Israel had a full understanding as to what the flotilla was seeking to accomplish, with whom it was communicated, what information it was disseminating, etc.

That would have gone over well

Israel kidnaps, and holds hostage Turkish citizens, leading to Turkey asserting that it was attacked by a foreign country and demands that Nato assists it as Nato is obligated to in dealing with that foreign country.

Obama did what he had to do from an international diplomatic point of view. Israel holding Turkish citizens that it took prisoner of when they were in international waters could have seen Turkey demanding their release or see Turkey and Nato use force to secure their release.

 

[donsutherland1]

That would have gone over well

Israel kidnaps, and holds hostage Turkish citizens, leading to Turkey asserting that it was attacked by a foreign country and demands that Nato assists it as Nato is obligated to in dealing with that foreign country.

Turkey would not have been attacked. Detaining and prosecuting criminal suspects does not amount to an attack. Otherwise, one could assert that the U.S., UK, and PSI states (one of which is Turkey) regularly engage in attacks on other sovereign states when they capture, detain, and sometimes prosecute individuals who are running narcotics or even WMD components through international waters.

If one examines the NATO Charter, it is clear from the language in Articles 5 and 6 that there would not be even the remotest chance under which the above could be considered an attack on Turkey that would trigger NATO's assistance.

For those who are unfamiliar with it, Articles 5 and 6 are as follows:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6 (1)
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

- on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
- on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Turkey would not have been attacked. Detaining and prosecuting criminal suspects does not amount to an attack. Otherwise, one could assert that the U.S., UK, and PSI states (one of which is Turkey) regularly engage in attacks on other sovereign states when they capture, detain, and sometimes prosecute individuals who are running narcotics or even WMD components through international waters.

What crime did the people in the floatilla commit? They broke no international law as they were not transporting narcotics or WMD's they did not enter Israel territory, all they did was defend themselves and their boat from being boarded. As such there would be no justification to hold them for any period of time

If one examines the NATO Charter, it is clear from the language in Articles 5 and 6 that there would not be even the remotest chance under which the above could be considered an attack on Turkey that would trigger NATO's assistance.

For those who are unfamiliar with it, Articles 5 and 6 are as follows:

 

[donsutherland1]

What crime did the people in the floatilla commit? They broke no international law as they were not transporting narcotics or WMD's they did not enter Israel territory, all they did was defend themselves and their boat from being boarded. As such there would be no justification to hold them for any period of time

Only until they attempted to breach the maritime blockade (which was established by Israel against a non-sovereign entity to protect the lives of Israel's people--every sovereign state has an inherent right of self-defense) and resist inspection, they committed no crime. However, as that is not what happened, those who engaged in violence should have been prosecuted. Moreover, knives and a molotov cocktail were found onboard, so the mission in question was not a purely humanitarian one.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

You mean like knives wow

By god I have those in my house used for cooking

Do you think ships might have kitchens used to cook things and that knives might be used to assit in cooking things?

It was a humanitarian/political mission

Humanitarian in that it was providing NON military materials to Gaza, and a political one in that it was highlighting the blockade and the humanitarian issues that it is causing in Gaza.

At the time of the raid, the ships were still in international waters and as such did not attempt to breach the blockade (at that time).

Israel also raided in the early morning, did they ask to be allowed to inspect the vessels at sear, or was the goal to seize the ships and bring them into Israeli territory. I am sure that an inspection would not have been prevented, but a raid to seize control of the ships is a different story entirely is it not

 

[bhkad]

Good for Israel; prevention certainly goes a long way toward the security of their borders and curbing the need to respond with violence. I hope they prosecute these militants to the full extent of the law.

They prosecuted them alright. They prosecuted them to death.

The troops opened fire after calls to stop were ignored, and five terrorists were killed in the ensuing gunfight. No IDF commandos were wounded in the incident.

IDF foils attack close to Gaza

Fans of proportionality probably think the IDF should allow five of their own to be killed as well.

 

[bhkad]

You mean like knives wow

By god I have those in my house used for cooking

Do you think ships might have kitchens used to cook things and that knives might be used to assit in cooking things?

It was a humanitarian/political mission

Humanitarian in that it was providing NON military materials to Gaza, and a political one in that it was highlighting the blockade and the humanitarian issues that it is causing in Gaza.

At the time of the raid, the ships were still in international waters and as such did not attempt to breach the blockade (at that time).

Israel also raided in the early morning, did they ask to be allowed to inspect the vessels at sear, or was the goal to seize the ships and bring them into Israeli territory. I am sure that an inspection would not have been prevented, but a raid to seize control of the ships is a different story entirely is it not

"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP, May 27, 2010.)

Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise

 

[ferrugem]

Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise

Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade

Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area

Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel

nothing to be added...

 

[jallman]

They prosecuted them alright. They prosecuted them to death.



IDF foils attack close to Gaza

Fans of proportionality probably think the IDF should allow five of their own to be killed as well.

That's a ridiculous statement. These 5 terrorists were making a b-line directly into Israel. If they were shot, so be it.

There's a difference between killing an intruder and racing your tanks up and down the streets of the equivalent of an Indian reservation.

 

[Tucker Case]

Alan Dershowitz: Israel's Actions Were Entirely Lawful Though Probably Unwise

Good article.

I thought this was the most important part:

The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.

I think that this gets to the crux of the issue. I could care less about the international legality of the blockade. Whether or not it is legal or illegal, trying to break it is painting a target on one's self.

 

[donsutherland1]

I do not think Israel had any choice. The Obama administration has them by the throat. I think that much of what has happened recently, including the flotilla and turkey's actions stem from what the world sees coming out of Washington. I see you are from NY, I wonder if supporters will continue to vote in Democratic senators that stand idly by while Israel is being sold down the river.

IMO, the White House has been unnecessarily and inappropriately tough on Israel. At the same time, it has all but overlooked the previous Palestinian boycott of negotiations and seems to be having some difficulty understanding the big picture in the Middle East. IMO, the Administration should not have supported the recent Security Council statement that all but condemned Israel for the flotilla incident.

In terms of New York, political competition is weak. The New York State GOP is largely moribund. The committee has ineffectual leadership, the party has few credible candidates, the State committee does little to help fund those in statewide races, etc. Those weaknesses amplify the impact of a decided enrollment disadvantage. Hence, the kind of big changes that one might see in other states in November, not to mention those that have already occurred in New Jersey and Virginia, are not very likely in New York.

Finally, as for New York's senators, I will give credit where credit is due and note that Senator Schumer has been supportive of Israel.

 

[kaya'08]

From today's edition of The Jerusalem Post:

Israeli Navy commandos prevented a terror attack on Monday morning, when a unit of heavily armed Palestinian frogmen was intercepted in the Nahal Aza area...

According to IDF, the size of the unit and equipment it was carrying proved that a large scale attack had been planned, and only the commandos' quick, effective response prevented a disaster.

This foiled terrorist operation highlights the security threat posed by terrorist organizations from within the Gaza Strip and the need to limit their ability to obtain weapons and other materials that they could use to strengthen their capabilities. In other words, it reaffirms the need to maintain security measures, including the maritime blockade. Indeed, without a blockade, it is plausible that the terrorists would have slipped away from the Gaza Strip undetected.

Why? Its called border and sea controls. Anyway, what does this all matter now? Mubarak seems like he has no intention in closing the Egyptian blockade on Gaza, which pretty much renders everything else useless.

 

[washunut]

IMO, the White House has been unnecessarily and inappropriately tough on Israel. At the same time, it has all but overlooked the previous Palestinian boycott of negotiations and seems to be having some difficulty understanding the big picture in the Middle East. IMO, the Administration should not have supported the recent Security Council statement that all but condemned Israel for the flotilla incident.

In terms of New York, political competition is weak. The New York State GOP is largely moribund. The committee has ineffectual leadership, the party has few credible candidates, the State committee does little to help fund those in statewide races, etc. Those weaknesses amplify the impact of a decided enrollment disadvantage. Hence, the kind of big changes that one might see in other states in November, not to mention those that have already occurred in New Jersey and Virginia, are not very likely in New York.

Finally, as for New York's senators, I will give credit where credit is due and note that Senator Schumer has been supportive of Israel.

He say been, but seems very quiet this time around. I am also surprised that has not at least tried to screaming at Wall Street. They made mistakes but do you think a Midwestern senator would allow bashing of farmers if the price of wheat went through the roof.

I understand NY politics a bit, I grew up there. In that neighborhood the election was really if there was a primary. Not sure why someone has not jumped at the chance to take him on. Might be money, expensive media market.