From Modern Mitzvot:
(OFF THE COAST OF GAZA) 1 September 2008 – Israeli Naval vessels are currently firing on unarmed Palestinian fishing boats and international human rights workers off the coast of the Gaza Strip. The fishing boats are several miles off the coast of Gaza City, in Palestinian territorial waters. As of 11am (4am EST) no one had been injured, but live ammunition is still being fired in the direction of the civilian boats.
The unarmed boats went to sea at dawn this morning, in an attempt to fish in their own water. Six international human rights workers from five different countries accompanied the fishermen in the hopes that their presence would deter the Israeli military from firing on the fishermen. In the past the Israeli military has shot and killed unarmed Palestinian fishermen for trying to fish in their own waters.
For further background, you may want to read these past posts on Modern Mitzvot:
- Rights Advocates Defy Israeli Blockade of Gaza – NYTimes.com
- Gaza boats fight rough seas, poor communications
- Activists sail to bust Israeli sea blockade on Gaza
- Two boats filled with activists on route to Gaza
The press release asks that people call their embassies:
- The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Tel. +972 2 530 3111 (Contact form.)
- The British Embassy in Tel Aviv: +972 3 725 1222
- The US Embassy in Tel Aviv: +972 2 625 5755 (email)
If modern naval vessels are firing at fishing boats, and no one has been killed yet, they are definitely not trying. Now, I do not know why the Israeli object to the fishermen… probably because someone threw a fish at them or something. But the title of your post makes it sounds as if they are shooting to kill, and it seems to me that they aren’t.
Hmmn. That wasn’t deliberate. What do you think would be a better post title?
(Can we agree that firing on unarmed civilians, even without intent to kill, is reprehensible?)
Try to split that hair a little finer, Petar.
In the past the Israeli military has shot and killed unarmed Palestinian fishermen for trying to fish in their own waters.
I dunno, Petar, it certainly sounds like modern naval vessels have been shooting at fishing boats and killing people. But maybe I’m misreading that sentence.
Auguste, I bow before your bravery… but as someone does not spit in face of danger, who has been fired at, and who has two bullet scars, I think that there are finer hairs that can be split. “Fire warning shots”, “Spray them with water”, and “Shoot to kill” are quite different for both the one at the trigger and the one downrange.
And Ampersand, yes, “firing on unarmed civilians” is usually reprehensible, and if done for long enough, people will die. But an unarmed civilian is not always harmless, and I can theoretically imagine a situation in which it is justified.
I admit, I have not cared enough to read what this is about. But if these fishing boats are breaking a blockade, or even threatening to, they know what they are risking. Their cause may be a just one, international law may be at their side, the Israeli may be a bunch of cruel and paranoid invaders… but still, when you go against guns, you take the risk of being shot at.
I do not even know where my sympathies lie. I have Jewish friends, and no Palestinian ones. The Palestinians are the underdog, and no matter how the conflict started, the Israeli are the occupiers. But in 1878, my ancestors (Tatar cavalry) were part of a conquering army (Russians), liked the ‘liberated’ territory (Bulgaria), kicked the previous invaders (Turks) out of a village, and settled to live alongside the ‘liberated’ populace (Slavs). God knows who was right, but it turned out OK for the ones who were left.
This is story that is as old as mankind… What is going on in and around Israel is nothing new. OK, it’s the 21st Century, and the Israeli can’t just bulldozer the Palestinians out of Palestine… or can they? But at the end of the day, one side has the might, and the other does not. As for the right, we can talk all day, but I would be suspicious of anyone who can adopt the viewpoint of either of the two groups in question. Unless, of course, he belongs to one of them.
> > In the past the Israeli military has shot and killed unarmed
> > Palestinian fishermen for trying to fish in their own waters.
> I dunno, Petar, it certainly sounds like modern naval vessels
> have been shooting at fishing boats and killing people. But
> maybe I’m misreading that sentence.
No, I must be the one misreading it. I read it as “Israeli military has shot and killed unarmed Palestinian fishermen for being present in blockaded waters.”
Hmm. My point was the title was misleading for the present situation. Lets imagine that a native tribe in California was protesting a new casino law, matched in violation of the applicable regulations, and a policeman fired a warning shot (not SOP, but lets imagine it)
Do you think that “Federal troops open fire on unarmed Native Americans” would be an appropriate title? Yes, shots have been fired, the Native Americans were unarmed, and there have been earlier massacres of Native Americans by federal troops.
Pingback: The Banality of Violence « Modern Mitzvot
It is really a practical issue.
Imagine that you have been tasked to prevent a group of unarmed Republicans from doing something shitty. It is very important that you prevent them from accomplishing their nefarious goal. You have been authorized to use lethal force if necessary, but you don’t want to.
You start with public notice and warnings; you escalate to bullhorns, sirens, a show of force; if you can, then you use tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. If all that still doesn’t work then you might use live rounds and fire “over their heads,” as has been done for hundreds of years. Your hope is that everyone who isn’t willing to die for their goal will believe that you are willing to kill them if they don’t stop, and that as a result of that belief, they will go away and you won’t have to kill anyone. The escalation is because you save live ammo for near the end, as it is dangerous in comparison to, say, yelling.
Otherwise, it’s too abrupt. If the next step after “warn” is “shoot to kill,” then you run the risk of people on both sides thinking “wait a second, i didn’t want THAT to happen!”
Anyway, that is why it can work on land.
But the other practical aspect is that things are very different on the ocean. Lots of territory; tear gas doesn’t work; you are in a hostile environment do disabling boats improperly can kill people; and (important given the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the use of suicide fighters) it is much much easier to hide stuff in boats (bombs, guns, etc.) than it is to hide them on your person.
Shooting live ammunition is OK in my view in the context of trying to AVOID killing people, while trying to ACCOMPLISH your goal of preventing them from doing something. It is one of various escalation indicators.
Obviously, that assumes the underlying goal is valid. But as a tactic, live ammo is a reasonable tool.
Sailor, you’re missing the point.
These aren’t unarmed Republicans, trying to do something shitty.
They’re unarmed fishermen. They’re trying to…go fishing.
Has there been any recent history of arms or munitions being smuggled by boat? That’s the only scenario in which I could partially sympathize with the Israeli Navy in this instance.
The linked article says clearly that the Palestinians were in their own waters, but even if on the off chance it was mistaken and they were skirting the border, here’s what I’d place my bet on. Human nature being the same, here or in Gaza, it’s probably just another armed authority getting off on a power trip against people whom they personally dislike. Sort of like the odd riot policeman at a demonstration.
If the underlying goal of prevention is invalid, then the use of live ammo is invalid (and so is everything else.) In such a case the problem is not one of what type of force is being used; the problem is that force is being used at all.
Conversely, if the goal of prevention is valid, then the use of live ammo can be reasonable and even desirable in comparison to other issues. So when Amp says “Can we agree that firing on unarmed civilians, even without intent to kill, is reprehensible?” my answer is “No, not without knowing the context in which it occurred.”
In gaza, if the blockade is unjustified, then a naval blockade is also unjustified. Or the reverse. But in either case, it has no bearing on the general analysis of whether or not the use of live ammo is justified w/r/t unarmed civilians.
Has there been any recent history of arms or munitions being smuggled by boat? That’s the only scenario in which I could partially sympathize with the Israeli Navy in this instance.
There has indeed been such history this decade, which makes it recent at least for certain values of “recent.” On January 3rd, 2002, the Israelis intercepted the Palestinian Authority’s freighter Karine A, en route from Iran to Gaza, in the Red Sea, and seized 50 tons of weapons and explosives destined for Palestinian militants in the Gaza strip. The cargo included plastic explosives, Russian Katyusha rockets, hand grenades, mines, mortars, rifles, and anti-tank missiles, and according to information obtained by the Israeli navy, was to be offloaded into boats in Palestinian territorial waters, rather than carried into the Gaza harbor and landed directly from the freighter. Hence the blockade of fishing boats.
I’m not saying it’s right, or that the Israelis aren’t overreacting (nor am I saying it’s wrong and that they are — I’m not a naval strategist, nor an expert on the law of the sea, and I don’t know enough to judge), just that that’s their reasoning. Their position is that the intent of the blockade is not to prevent the Palestinians from catching fish, but to prevent them from rendezvousing with ships carrying weapons that would be used to kill Israelis, and the historical record shows that that position has at least some basis in reality.
I think you’re being pedantic.
You’re technically correct that there are circumstances in which firing on unarmed civilians is the proper course of action. Generally this involves situations in which the civilians, though unarmed, are violent and endangering the lives of others.
I think it’s pretty obvious from the context of Amp’s question that he wasn’t talking about situations in which the civilians are violently endangering others.
And I don’t see how you could possibly spin this situation, as reported, into a context where firing on them would be justified.
“Fire warning shots”, “Spray them with water”, and “Shoot to kill” are quite different for both the one at the trigger and the one downrange.
Of course, we don’t know what order was actually given. Maybe the order was “shoot to kill” and the people firing the guns were staging a low level rebellion by shooting to miss. I imagine–no, I know from the testimony of several Israeli friends with military experience–that many Israeli soldiers don’t always like the orders they are given any more than every US-American soldier liked being ordered into Iraq, a country that had committed no acts of war against the US.