Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
From the current issue of The Economist:
Israel's desire to stop the flotilla reaching Gaza was understandable....As it was, disastrous planning by Israel's soldiers led to a needless loss of life.
"Needless loss of life." "Fiasco." "Embarrassing incompetence." Over the last few days this idea--basically, that the Israeli Defense Forces screwed up--has become an instance of what Bill Buckley used to call the "planted axiom." That is, an assertion made so often that it becomes, simply, taken for granted. Yet nowhere--not in The Economist, not anywhere else--have I seen a single convincing argument that the Israelis could have enforced the blockade in any other way.
Sabotage the flotilla before it left port? Oh? And engage in a gross violation of another nation's sovereignty?
Maneuver Israeli vessels so as to block the flotilla? Really? And provoke a collision at sea? The largest of the six ships in the flotilla, you will recall, was a cruise ship--as massive, essentially, as a floating hotel. Collide with that? And expect no loss of life?
Disable the flotilla? Break their keels or disable their screws with a few well-aimed but smallish torpedos? What an interesting thought. Even if the explosions did nothing but disable the vessels precisely as hoped, the Israelis would then have been faced with hundreds of people afloat and drifting in international waters. What then? Attempt to tow the vessels to port? Over the objections of those aboard them? Or stand by while those aboard ran out of food and water? And the "international community," such as it is, took days and days to pull itself together to decide how to rescue them?
Sorry. But the Israeli decision to board the vessels from the air, gaining control of them as peacefully as possible, strikes me as the best--and safest--of the bad options with which Israel found itself confronted. Maybe I'm wrong--maybe a Ricochet reader will be able to direct me a compelling, believable argument that the Israeli operation could indeed have proven safer. But what's striking for now is that nobody is even attempting to make such a case.
- Comment (13)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
Actually, the only thing you can reasonably criticize about the action is the fact that they tried to use non-lethal guns insterad of real bullets.
That must be what The Economist is criticizing.... suuuuurre, that's it.
I still believe that they need to be more blunt ahead of time, and publicize all over the place what they need to do and why. The international media will still sell the Palestinian propaganda, but it is better to be proactive about commuinications than reactive.
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
The Israeli military concedes the mission was poorly planned and poorly executed. See this piece -- authored with the help of several US maritime security experts -- which talks about the various alternatives and factors to consider. There is little getting around the conclusion that boarding the ship the way they did was foolish -- and that disabling the ship and then towing it to a secure area was a much better option. This could have been done very easily without any loss of life. And that is a much better outcome for Israel, even if it earns the ire of the usual suspects regardless.
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
The flotilla was delayed by slightly unusual mechanical failures, for what it's worth.
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
It is not as easy to disable a ship as is often assumed. This is not the movies. But it will,be interesting to see how things change if the Iranian navy follows through and escorts the next weapons smuggling attempt. Israel will have no choice but to engage them.
I favor sinking them outright instead of boarding.
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
Very well said, Peter. The "international community" strikes me as a kind of fatuous back-seat driver, offering nothing but criticism and second-guessing from behind, while Israel tries to navigate an increasingly twisty and dangerous road. And like that back seat driver, the world will not emerge unscathed from any resulting wreck. They think they're buying themselves some peace by abandoning Israel, but the war they are encouraging with their fecklessness will consume them, too.
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
May I suggest reading this article...Unless, of course, Edward Luttwak is an actor!
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
I am always surprised in situations like this, which call for use of non-lethal force, where the authorities fail to use innovative non-lethal agents/weapons to gain the advantage.
Perhaps they are not practical or effective in a large vessel boarding, but I can't imagine there isn't something that lies between paintball guns and lethal force that could be used to good effect.
One would think Israel might be on the forefront of some innovative non-lethal technologies....
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
Harlech, I didn't see any quotes from Mr. Luttwak, he was referred to, unattributed, in the end notes (I have some interesting- unrelated- stories from CSIS dating back to when my daughter interned there as a grad student). The article only addressed one non-lethal disabling technology, which appeared to be, based on the link, designed for small pirate boats, because the torque generated by a large multi-screw ship would usually slice such a rope to ribbons.
Could they have sent frogmen down below the surface to try to plant charges by the prop? Sure, but that would likely have, as with a torpedo (the company I worked for for 10 years was the world's largest producer of light torpedoes), also blown a hole in the ship and made the PR problem worse.
I frankly believe that most of these post-mortem articles are of the usual "Israel screwed up again, it's their own fault" variety. I tend to believe, based on my experienced negotiating with Israeli high-tech companies, that, unless constrained by domestic politics (Ohlmert, Livni), Israel isn't as dumb as the artilces like to suggest. I kind of go along with Peter on this one with regard to the military response.
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
Duane, you're right, the article doesn't attribute specific sections to the authors (like Luttwak), but I cite it because it meshes very well with the "poorly planned and poorly executed" narrative to which even the Israeli military seems to be agreeing. In this case, poor planning includes rappelling down into an angry crowd.
Now, as far as whether Israel is "as dumb as the articles like to suggest," Israel has miscalculated before (see Lebanon 2006). The IDF & Co. are brilliant and one of the most effective fighting forces in the world, but they -- like us -- do indeed make mistakes.
Yes, Israel was justified in its actions. Yes, "peace flotilla" was a trap sprung by people who have little to no interest in peace. Yes, the mainstream media is biased. Yes, the international community is hypocritical.
All I'm saying is that Israel walked right into the trap and should've known better. But we can agree to disagree. ;-)
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
Duane, the article you linked gave three different methods, one of which the author immediately admitted wouldn't work. The other two -- a warning shot and fouling the props with ropes or chains -- likely wouldn't have worked, either because the ship was too big or because fanatics generally aren't dissuaded by warning shots.
I don't see a way they could have secured the ship without kiling any of the passengers who, remember, were ready to fight and knew the Israelis were coming.
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
Harlech, I agree with your statement: "as far as whether Israel is 'as dumb as the articles like to suggest,' Israel has miscalculated before (see Lebanon 2006)."-
However, I had specifically attempted to address that Lebanon venture in my last post with the reference to Livni and Ohlmert, who were its inept architects due to their domestic political positioning trying to seem to be "less belligerent" than Likkud for electoral reasons.
Jimmie- my intended reference was to actually disabling the ship without boarding it first. Sorry if I was less than clear.
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
Charles Allen:
One would think Israel might be on the forefront of some innovative non-lethal technologies.... · Jun 6 at 6:20pm
I think part of the problem is we’re making the assumption that Israel has an arsenal of non-lethal weaponry. Maybe ideally they could have yelled hey stop and then pounded them with CS gas, sound waves, millimeter-wave radar beams, flash bang grenades, etc., but I don’t know how much of those abilities the Israeli military has. Clearly, they didn’t have the element of surprise when they fast-roped one by one onto the deck with a crowd of hostile “humanitarians” waiting for them, so I’m not sure why they did that. But they did, and then had no choice but to use lethal force to protect their troops. The naval blockade was legal, enforcement of a naval blockade is legal and killing those people if they’re attacking you is legal, but in the PR war that doesn’t seem to count. But, I am in agreement with Peter. I support Israel’s decision, because they were there. We weren’t. It’s their country to defend and Israelis aren’t stupid. Maybe next time they should just torpedo the damn boats and then deny it.
May '10
Re: Pointing Out a Planted Axiom
Of course, if they find pieces of the torpedo it will probably be stamped with "Made in the USA" and then they'll blame us. :-)