Merged Israel Attacks Palestinian Aid Flotilla, According To Reports

[yairhol]

Here's what really happened for those who wish to know the facts.Others who have made up their mind that Israel is the all terrible all violent country, you can just skip this.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...l_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm#weapons

​

2. Legal Points [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][MFA]
[/FONT][/FONT]The Gaza Flotilla and the Maritime Blockade of Gaza
Legal Background – 31 May 2010
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade [/FONT][/FONT]may be captured or even attacked under international law. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is [/FONT][/FONT]considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these
2 vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]12. [/FONT][/FONT]Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial].
[/FONT][/FONT]

Flotilla Leaders Stated Sunday that Violence was Premeditated
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The organizers of the Gaza flotilla announced in advance their intention of using violence against Israeli forces if the latter tried to prevent the ships from reaching Gaza. This intention was expressed in interviews given by the head of the IHH, Bulent Yildirim, to Turkish television stations on the last night of the voyage, as the ships approached the coast: http://tinyurl.com/IHHViolence
[/FONT][/FONT]



After reading and watching these facts, do you still think Israel is to blame for what happened at sea?

 

[lionking]

I'll ask again, because the responses were deafening last time. Hands up those who believe that Israel should allow each and every ship to dock in Gaza when this technique was used in the past to land weapons and rockets which were used against Israel?

Still only one unconvincing response to this. Man up everyone, Israel should allow any ship to dock in Gaza or not?

 

[DC]

Here's what really happened for those who wish to know the facts.Others who have made up their mind that Israel is the all terrible all violent country, you can just skip this.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...l_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm#weapons






Flotilla Leaders Stated Sunday that Violence was Premeditated
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The organizers of the Gaza flotilla announced in advance their intention of using violence against Israeli forces if the latter tried to prevent the ships from reaching Gaza. This intention was expressed in interviews given by the head of the IHH, Bulent Yildirim, to Turkish television stations on the last night of the voyage, as the ships approached the coast: http://tinyurl.com/IHHViolence
[/FONT][/FONT]



After reading and watching these facts, do you still think Israel is to blame for what happened at sea?

After reading the list of banned goods, YES.

 

[JihadJane]

Israeli PR machine won Gaza flotilla media battle
Reporting by mainstream media on the Gaza flotilla attack was unbalanced and dominated by Israel's edited version of events

 

[Kotatsu]

2. Legal Points [MFA]
The Gaza Flotilla and the Maritime Blockade of Gaza
Legal Background – 31 May 2010
1. A maritime blockade is in effect off the coast of Gaza. Such blockade has been imposed, as Israel is currently in a state of armed conflict with the Hamas regime that controls Gaza, which has repeatedly bombed civilian targets in Israel with weapons that have been smuggled into Gaza via the sea.
2. Maritime blockades are a legitimate and recognized measure under international law that may be implemented as part of an armed conflict at sea.
3. A blockade may be imposed at sea, including in international waters, so long as it does not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States.
4. The naval manuals of several western countries, including the US and England recognize the maritime blockade as an effective naval measure and set forth the various criteria that make a blockade valid, including the requirement of give due notice of the existence of the blockade.
5. In this vein, it should be noted that Israel publicized the existence of the blockade and the precise coordinates of such by means of the accepted international professional maritime channels. Israel also provided appropriate notification to the affected governments and to the organizers of the Gaza protest flotilla. Moreover, in real time, the ships participating in the protest flotilla were warned repeatedly that a maritime blockade is in effect.
6. Here, it should be noted that under customary law, knowledge of the blockade may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification has been granted, as above.
7. Under international maritime law, when a maritime blockade is in effect, no boats can enter the blockaded area. That includes both civilian and enemy vessels.
8. A State may take action to enforce a blockade. Any vessel that violates or attempts to violate a maritime blockade may be captured or even attacked under international law. The US Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations sets forth that a vessel is considered to be in attempt to breach a blockade from the time the vessel leaves its port with the intention of evading the blockade.
9. Here we should note that the protesters indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade by means of written and oral statements. Moreover, the route of these
2 vessels indicated their clear intention to violate the blockade in violation of international law.
10. Given the protesters explicit intention to violate the naval blockade, Israel exercised its right under international law to enforce the blockade. It should be noted that prior to undertaking enforcement measures, explicit warnings were relayed directly to the captains of the vessels, expressing Israel's intent to exercise its right to enforce the blockade.
11. Israel had attempted to take control of the vessels participating in the flotilla by peaceful means and in an orderly fashion in order to enforce the blockade. Given the large number of vessels participating in the flotilla, an operational decision was made to undertake measures to enforce the blockade a certain distance from the area of the blockade.
12. Israeli personnel attempting to enforce the blockade were met with violence by the protesters and acted in self defense to fend off such attacks.

13. We therefore opted to murder people by shooting them in the head.

Still only one unconvincing response to this. Man up everyone, Israel should allow any ship to dock in Gaza or not?

OK, I don't know if I'm in your target group or not, but my answer would be: in a perfect world, yes, but while Hamas is bombing Israeli civilians, no. However, any ship that can be shown not to contain any weapons -- by which I mean actual weapons, which were designed, constructed, and bought with the clear intent to be used as weapon; this does not extend to things which may be used as weapons, such as most of the tools and stuff claimed to be weapons from the Mavi Marmara -- should be free to dock and unload wherever they want in the Gaza area. These controls should not be carried out by armed soldiers in the middle of the night.

 

[DreadNiK]

Thank you!
No, I would like to live in a world where everyone agrees that it is never right to use a gun against another human being, no matter what the reason.

Really? So that psychotic murderer about to chop up a little kid - you don't want to be right in having a gun and shooting him? You're weird

As I said (or implied at least), I do not believe it was right of the commanding officers to send their soldiers aboard the Mavi Marmara once it was clear that the activists there (1) were armed, and intended to use those weapons in case of an Israeli boarding.

Fine. So all a blockade runner has to do is arm himself and Israel must then do what exactly if it wants to enforce its blockade? (I'm open to the possibility there are better solutions)

To virtually the same extent that it can be said that the violent portion of the activists were provoking their own "martyrdom" by attacking the Israeli, it can also be said that the Israeli commanding officers actively choose to risk sacrificing their soldiers, and for largely the same reason: propaganda.

We have evidence that those attacking the soldiers wanted to be martyrs. We do not have evidence that the IDF commanders wanted to martyr their soldiers, to equate the two when there is an imbalance of evidence is not too great imo

The activist attackers/morons "needed" to attack the Israeli in order to gain additional leverage in what could be termed the "sympathy war" in the West (2). But on the other hand, Israel "needed" to stop the ship in some way, and at least try to come out on top somehow, so I can understand why the commanding officers may have acted the way they did, and sent their soldiers down to a ship where they beyond any shred of a doubt would be at best clobbered.

OK

The statement, "If the activists hadn't attacked the Israeli soldiers, they wouldn't have been killed" is as true as "If the Israeli soldiers had not descended onto the ship, they would never have been attacked". This is not a question about one side being good and the other bad, but a question of there being idiots all over the place, and that idiocy does not recognise national or cultural boundaries.

No. You are wrong here, because it is far more truthful to make the following two statements: "If the activists hadn't given the Israeli soldiers no choice but to defend themselves with live fire, they wouldn't have been killed" and "If the Israeli soldiers had not descended onto the ship, the activists wouldn't have been able to choose to force the soldiers to defend themselves with live fire"

One side chose to drop onto a boat, after warnings etc etc - without action from other parties, there would have been no injuries

The other party - those activists on the top deck who attack the soldiers, their actions were with intent to cause and led directly to injury.

This is simple moral reasoning - I'm hoping it is because of the way Israel seems to warp people's views on the matter and not because you are simply deficient at reasoning

The soldiers can be blamed insofar as that they obeyed the orders of their superiors.

OK. But that's what soldiers do. There's a much clearer difference refusing say an order to 'fire into sleeping civilians' as freegaza.org's press release likes to lie about, and refusing an order to board a boat. So at worst, they made a an error of judgement that really wasn't theirs to make...

Well, in my opinion, any soldier who decided to obey his superior's orders to descend onto the Mavi Marmara despite both of them -- I assume -- knowing that the ship was filled with an angry and armed mob has instantly forfeited his right to apply the term "self-defense" to any subsequent action,

Then clearly you have a basic misunderstanding of the term self-defense. Also, generally, when you have guns, and the other side doesn't, you shouldn't expect them to be stupid enough to attack you. However I don't think stupidity was the issue, and that was Israel's biggest mistake, not realising their hand was going to be forced into what you foolishly call murder.

and especially one which resulted in the murdering of fellow human beings. If, as bigjelmapro asserts, this does not fit the standard definition of murder or self-defense, and if this does not parallel the "rules of war", then the error lies in these definitions and in these rules.

Ok - again we're having problems on a more basic level of agreement. I think you really need to accept there are times when it is morally acceptable to kill someone.

If I made all the rules, the Israeli soldiers responsible for murdering those activists would be charged with murder

Well I'm very relieved that you are not then, because I find that disgusting.

, whereas their commanding officers would be charged with putting their soldiers in a situation where they felt they had no other option than to murder people. Theirs is in many respects a more heinous and reprehensible crime, as -- I would assume, as that was the way it was when I was in the Marines -- the soldiers are trained to assume that their officer knows what is best, and to trust and obey him.

Oh yes, those poor activists on the boat were left with 'no other option' than to attack the soldiers. Give me a BREAK. Do you understand that people have choices, and generally the only way to remove people's real choice is to credibly threaten their lives. The choice lay with the activists. The IDF contributed to the situation where the activists could make that choice. They are not morally equivalent.

(And yes, I certainly do agree that there is no reason not to assume that a majority of the attacks on the Israeli soldiers was with murderous intent, and that the Israeli soldier cannot be expected to judge whether angry mob member #1 is trying to murder him or just subdue him. We cannot, however, claim that this is a certainty.)

And I'm not. I'm pretty certain however that the soldier cannot be expected to make that judgement, you seem to agree with that. And that is the important part.

 

[yairhol]

that is reason to ban :

sage
cardamom
cumin
coriander
ginger
jam
halva
vinegar
nutmeg
chocolate

fruit preserves
seeds and nuts
biscuits and sweets
potato chips
gas for soft drinks
dried fruit
fresh meat
horses
donkeys
goats
cattle
chicks

DC, you have nothing to grasp a hold of anymore in your claims against Israel, so now you're saying that because these are not allowed into Gaza, attacking the soldiers is called for and soldiers retaliating is uncalled for. Got it.
DC, you've lost the war on keeping sane.
Your claims don't have a legal ground anymore so you revert to these and those specific goods are not allowed into Gaza.

 

[DreadNiK]

After reading the list of banned goods, YES.

LOL at the idea that the blame for the fatalities depends on the (unconfirmable) list of banned goods.

So it suddenly changes from justified self defense to murder depending on whether your government were planning to let chocolate into reach Gaza or not?

Let me just state for the record - IF that list is accurate, it is pretty nuts. Some supporting evidence would be good (yes I've downloaded the PDF).

I'm still laughing at your reasoning though.

 

[JihadJane]

After reading and watching these facts, do you still think Israel is to blame for what happened at sea?

Yes. Israel was very foolish to launch a military assault on an aid vessel in international waters and to respond to civil disobedience and resistance with such insanely disproportionate violence.

Unfortunately, this is Israeli pattern of behavior is very familiar, isolating the country and, in effect, putting it under a self-imposed siege of increasingly Apartheid-South-Africa proportions.

 

[DC]

DC, you have nothing to grasp a hold of anymore in your claims against Israel, so now you're saying that because these are not allowed into Gaza, attacking the soldiers is called for and soldiers retaliating is uncalled for. Got it.
DC, you've lost the war on keeping sane.
Your claims don't have a legal ground anymore so you revert to these and those specific goods are not allowed into Gaza.

i was convinced that the the act of Israels Marine was within the laws very early in this thread. i question if the Bloackade is legal as.
and what i have to question even more is the list of banned goods.

you say i have lost the war on keeping sane?
no read the list, its Israel that has lost its mind.

how does a ban on Chocolate and dried fruit make Israel saver? tell me, maybe i just dont get it in my insanity.

 

[DC]

LOL at the idea that the blame for the fatalities depends on the (unconfirmable) list of banned goods.

So it suddenly changes from justified self defense to murder depending on whether your government were planning to let chocolate into reach Gaza or not?

Let me just state for the record - IF that list is accurate, it is pretty nuts. Some supporting evidence would be good (yes I've downloaded the PDF).

I'm still laughing at your reasoning though.

laughing is good for the health. have fun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8654337.stm

 

[lionking]

OK, I don't know if I'm in your target group or not, but my answer would be: in a perfect world, yes, but while Hamas is bombing Israeli civilians, no.However, any ship that can be shown not to contain any weapons -- by which I mean actual weapons, which were designed, constructed, and bought with the clear intent to be used as weapon; this does not extend to things which may be used as weapons, such as most of the tools and stuff claimed to be weapons from the Mavi Marmara -- should be free to dock and unload wherever they want in the Gaza area. These controls should not be carried out by armed soldiers in the middle of the night.

How do you think unarmed inspectors would have been greeted by these armed and prepared activists? Australian (and I'm certain every other nation's) customs inspectors have weapons available to them.

 

[yairhol]

DC, you have nothing to grasp a hold of anymore in your claims against Israel, so now you're saying that because these are not allowed into Gaza, attacking the soldiers is called for and soldiers retaliating is uncalled for. Got it.
DC, you've lost the war on keeping sane.
Your claims don't have a legal ground anymore so you revert to these and those specific goods are not allowed into Gaza.

Kotatsu, it's clear as day light that you have never been in any immediate threat in your life nor a threat to any of your close family. You live in a fantasy world where you say don't want to see any human being raising a gun on another human being, as you said. That's childish thinking and does not correlate with the real world.
It may be comfortable to live in such a fantasy world but unfortunately I and all other Israelis don't have that luxury.

 

[DreadNiK]

i was convinced that the the act of Israels Marine was within the laws very early in this thread. i question if the Bloackade is legal as.
and what i have to question even more is the list of banned goods.

you say i have lost the war on keeping sane?
no read the list, its Israel that has lost its mind.

how does a ban on Chocolate and dried fruit make Israel saver? tell me, maybe i just dont get it in my insanity.

Well, not suggesting you are insane but suggesting that a soldier makes the call whether to defend himself with live fire against a violent assault depends on whether their government is allowing chocolate into Gaza or not is pretty wacko to me.

People seem to forget that there wasn't exactly time for a geo-political debate on the flotilla during the boarding.

 

[Kotatsu]

Oh yes, those poor activists on the boat were left with 'no other option' than to attack the soldiers. Give me a BREAK. Do you understand that people have choices, and generally the only way to remove people's real choice is to credibly threaten their lives. The choice lay with the activists. The IDF contributed to the situation where the activists could make that choice. They are not morally equivalent.

I'm leaving for Stockholm (where I won't have internet access until Tuesday) in a few minutes, and don't have time to reply fully, but would like to point out that you have misunderstood me here. I am not saying that the activists had no other options, I am saying that the soldiers felt (or may have felt) that they (the soldiers) didn't, and that it was wrong of the Israeli commanding officers to place their own soldiers in a situation where these (the soldiers) felt they had no other option than to murder people.

The activists had plenty of other options, such as, for instance, not attacking the Israeli soldiers. They had agreed not to use violent methods of resistance prior to setting of for Gaza, but actively choose to disregard these agreements, and thus they, too, are responsible for the Israeli soldiers feeling they had no other choice than to murder people. The best scenario would have been if all activists had honoured their prior agreement and never used any violence, but there are idiots in every movement.

 

[DC]

Well, not suggesting you are insane but suggesting that a soldier makes the call whether to defend himself with live fire against a violent assault depends on whether their government is allowing chocolate into Gaza or not is pretty wacko to me.

People seem to forget that there wasn't exactly time for a geo-political debate on the flotilla during the boarding.

i don't blame Soldiers for doing their job and do what they have been ordered.
things went badly out of hand. and im pretty convinced that indeed some of those activists actually wanted this provocation, some even wished to become martyrs. i even call it an attention stunt, and it was exactly this.

it is an Insane tactic used against an insane blockade.

 

[DreadNiK]

I am saying that the soldiers felt (or may have felt) that they (the soldiers) didn't, and that it was wrong of the Israeli commanding officers to place their own soldiers in a situation where these (the soldiers) felt they had no other option than to murder people.

I enjoy your use of qualifying brackets

Anyway - I'm arguing the commanding officers did no such thing. They placed soldiers in a situation where 'if the activists acted like insane idiots trying to martyr themselves, their soldiers would have no option than to KILL IN SELF DEFENSE (caps for clarity - important concept and distinct from murder - look it up)

 

[yairhol]

Yes. Israel was very foolish to launch a military assault on an aid vessel in international waters and to respond to civil disobedience and resistance with such insanely disproportionate violence.

Unfortunately, this is Israeli pattern of behavior is very familiar, isolating the country and, in effect, putting it under a self-imposed siege of increasingly Apartheid-South-Africa proportions.

You're a police man. You see a car entering a restricted area with signs all over the fences telling people not to enter. The car enters anyway and while you try to stop it with flashing lights and megaphone. When the car stops the people inside try to lynch you with knives, metal bars etc. The people are all around you attacking. You're a police man so you have a gun. You know you're going to be dead soon. Do you use it ? Do you use it?
Will using it mean that you acted in insanely disproportionate violence?

 

[DreadNiK]

i don't blame Soldiers for doing their job and do what they have been ordered.

Ok - we agree on at least one thing, based on the evidence so far, the soldiers are not to blame for the fatalities.

Happy days

 

[bigjelmapro]

Quite; that does not make the behaviour of the crew of the Mavi Marmara in any way justified (I assume we are in agreement about this).

Never did justify it.

Well, it is hardly surprising that Israeli courts would dismiss those accusations, is it? Otherwise, they'd have to charge their own soldiers with murder and, if they were convicted, the empress knows what would happen.

Is this a claim that Israel's judicial system is colluding with the IDF and couldn't possibly fairly assess the incident?

You will notice that I never used that phrase, but "systematised murder", which is something quite different.

A change of 'z' to an 's' doesn't make it different. Explain how it is.

It would appear that you are talking to someone else here, as I spent more or less the entire previous post pointing out that I can see no excuses for the behaviour of those activists that attacked the Israeli soldiers. Even in the section you quote, I agree that the people who stab the Israeli soldiers with knives would seem to be intent to murder them, which is, as far as I can tell, an exact agreement with your position.

Not really. The issue I have is your attempts to rewrite legal definitions and somehow mask it behind a 'right' and by making the activists lethal actions towards the IDF with such innocuous words such as 'behavior'.

Where we disagree, albeit only slightly, is that I do not agree that the people who used other weapons than knives in their attacks on the Israeli soldiers were necessarily intent on murdering them. That would, given the videos released by the IDF, seem overwhelmingly likely, but I do not agree hat it can be ruled out that their intent was to subdue the soldiers, possibly in preparation for throwing them overboard. That is, of course, not acceptable either, but the case is not as clear-cut as for those who attacked with knives.

You keep dancing around this issue. The intent to murder by the activists existed when these activists stabbed, beat and shot at the boarding IDF with their own weaponry (ie knives, metal poles, and pistols) and the confirmed 2 guns that were taken from the IDF. One does not 'subdue' people by stabbing, beating and shooting them.

I've posted a more recent video of IDF soldiers being stabbed repeatedly, clearly, and the IDF soldier not using lethal force in return. This is clear-cut, this is straight-forward. Stop being so utterly disingenuous.

Here, let me spell it out to you in an easy-to-understand manner:

- Is Israel right in blockading Gaza? I decline to have an opinion in this matter, as there are compelling arguments for both sides.
...
I hope this clear up my view, and that you'll stop ascribing to me the exact opposite of what I write in the very post you quote.

Sorry that you're confusing the term 'right' with 'legal' in that it somehow supercedes Israel's right to enforce a naval blockade, with a properly declared exclusion zone, gave proper warning that this flotilla was using entering said zone, and that Israel has the right to board and detain based on this right.

As I've noticed over several posts, you have this innate need to have a long-winded, redundant responses of issues that have already been responded to and this need to ask for definitions that were already given and linked (ie self-defense).

I have not 'ascribed the exact opposite' when I have directly responded to your responses in full.

Further, I have not suggested that the IDF should have just walked away and left the convoy to their own devices. I could be persuaded that, apart from the unwarranted violence (from both sides) and the subsequent murders, Israel certainly handled reasonably. I have suggested that when it was clear to the Israeli soldiers that the crew of the Mavi Marmara were armed, and intended to use these arms against the Israeli soldiers in the event of a successful boarding, they should not have sent down soldiers, but tried something else.

There is no basis to make this claim that the boarding would be as violent as it turned out to be on the Mavi Marmara. Neither is the crystal ball defense working here that the IDF should not have boarded with the knowledge they had prior to the boarding.

I have suggested one method, of perhaps dubious utility (1). Doubtlessly the Israeli military commanders, who have much greater experience in these matters than I have, could have come up with other alternatives. But when they choose to send down their own soldiers onto a boat where the probability that they'd be attacked by an angry mob were so overwhelming, then they cannot claim that anything the soldiers did was in self-defense.

Again, answered this already, applying restrospective reasoning to this situation does not negate the argument for self-defense on the part of the IDF. Show me on a legal basis that the IDF knew that there was going to be a bunch of 'mercenaries' on board with intent to kill them and that self-defense is off the table. Until you answer this, you cannot make this claim endlessly and present it as true on any legal term.

I believe that the people who arranged this did understand that, which was why they agreed beforehand to use only non-violent resistance methods such as refusing to comply and standing in the way. It worked out fairly well on the other six ships, after all, despite a lot of unwarranted violence from the IDF. Their main fault was in not screening their crews for idiots beforehand.

On the contrary, I think the IHH screened their activists for just such an occasion and provided the stage and the means for such a violent response for propaganda purposes.

(1) Yes, WildCat, I have studied physics. However, unlike the physics courses you apparently took, mine didn't contain any in-depth studies of the tonnages and capabilities of the ships in the Israeli navy. Are you intending to comment on my comments on Operation Cast Lead, or are you ignoring it when it turns out that I don't sheepishly obey your preconceived notions?

The concept behind momentum and the mass involved will give you a rough estimate on how unlikely it is to use a large navy ship to attempt to block another large ship trucking towards you at 15 knots.

Do you understand that this would significantly increase the potential for deaths if this ship were to play chicken with a heavily armed cruiser? Or would we somehow try to spin it that this ship would have a 'right' to ram another ship in an attempt to break a blockade?