Nope. It concurs with my position. I read that very article earlier today.

Israel, as occupier, has exerted control. However, that is not the same as recognised national sovereignty. If anything, the article is about how Israel has been less than reasonable about that control.

The disengagement plan states: "Israel will hold sole control of Gaza airspace and will continue to carry out military activity in the waters of the Gaza Strip." Therefore, Israel continues to maintain exclusive control of Gaza's airspace and the territorial waters, just as it has since it occupied the Gaza Strip in 1967.

Are we disagreeing over the difference between sovereignty and exclusive control?

from bbauska above with edit for sovereign:
Does Israel need to apologize for blockading it's"exclusively controlled" waters, and boarding a vessel attempting to violate it's sovereignty? Yes, the PM should apologize for the mistakes in the boarding. Beyond that, Israel did nothing requiring an apology.

Does that mean an Israeli PM should only apologize for his county's boarding tactics considering Israel has exclusive control and right to board?

bbauska, a bit more than that. According to the report by the Israeli comptroller, there were mistakes made before the actual day, including the way that the flotilla was being dealt with before it even left port, and in strategy used. Not just low level operational mistakes in the boarding itself.

The different is that while Israel has control, it does not have de jure absolute rights, which sovereignty implies. And just because you have the right to do X, does not mean you should.

I absolutely agree with everything you said in your first paragraph.

Should Israel have boarded? Yes, in my opinion.
Should the protesters pushed the blockade? No, in my opinion.
Should the protesters attacked the Israeli marines? No.
Should the boarding be handled differently? Tactically, yes, I think we agree on that

Should Israel have done more to ensure the flotilla didn't arrive? Yes, according to the report of the Israeli comptroller
Should Israel have done more to plan for the arrival of the flotilla? Yes, according to the report of the Israeli comptroller
Should Israel have followed it's own protocols? Yes, but they didn't, according to the Israeli comptroller, to the point of illegality (in Israeli Law, that is).

It was not just tactical failures that were levied at the Israeli government (up to and including Netanyahu), it was strategic failures as well.

Indeed, while the blockade is legal, that doesn't mean Israel 'should' have imposed it as they did. Do you get the point about how having the right to do something does not necessarily make that the right thing to do?

I worry that there sometimes is a logical problem:

A is illegal, so let us assume that A is wrong to do (that is not always true, as sometimes the law is an ass), but for the sake of argument let's assume it anyway:

A ¬= legal => A ¬= good

Some then think that the complete reverse is true:

B = legal => B = good

All that the first line implies is:

C = good => C = legal

So, just because you 'have the right' to do something, does not mean it may not be something worth apologising for.

Example? Having an affair (totally legal in our nations)

I agree. Do you think the protesters have ANY culpability?

Sure they have some culpability. They were trying to run a blockade, and knew that Israel would try to enforce it.

But this is not about them. It's about the relationship between Israel and Turkey. Turkey did not sent the flotilla, and any country has a duty to defend the rights of it's citizens (even those who break the law have rights).

By the way, the boardings did not occur in Gazan waters, but in International waters. The border is 12 miles offshore. The Mavi Marmara was about 75 miles out when boarded.

That is why I agreed that the ship should have been disabled/boarded within Israeli controlled seas. We agree, we agree, we agree.

Do you think Turkey has a responsibility to stop protestors that are leaving (with plenty of notice, mind you) a nation to enter a nation illegally and endanger themselves? I do.

They did not all depart from Turkey. In fact, the flotilla met in Cyprus (the southern part), having formed from boats that had left from ports in three other countries, and the people on board were from many nations, including the USA.

I tend not to be keen on countries restricting the movement of their own citizens.

so they should have stopped only those boats originating from Turkey? I don't see how it matters where they originated and it does not change the situation one iota. Israel stopped a flotilla in an area it controls, things deteriorated from that point but as far as where they came from ...doesn't change things all that much.

Tom, I was answering a question about Turkey's responsibilities, not Israel's. How could Turkey have stopped ships leaving Greece or Southern Cyprus, which would not even have passed through Turkish territorial waters?

And you are wrong. Israel does not control the sea 75 miles out. That is over 60 miles into International Waters.

So, your question of me is utterly moot.

Danivon,
Would you have had a problem is the scenario went like this:
Israel meets vessel in international waters
Israel attempts peaceful resolution and asks vessel to turn back
Israel follows vessel into 12 mile limit and asks for vessel to halt and be boarded peacebly
Barring a peaceful boarding, Israel disables vessel via screw fouling, warning shots
Israel tows disable vessel to port of Haifa, and inspects vessel for contraband
Israel releases vessel and crew after any contraband is found and confiscated

I think this is the way it should have been handled.

As to a person violating the laws of another country, it is not the country whose laws are being violated responsibility to check with the crew member's nation.

Does Iran need to give back the pastor who was preaching Christianity? No, the guy went to another nation to violate that nation's laws. Roll the dice, and see what happens. Sometimes you roll snake eyes...

bbauska

I think this is the way it should have been handled.

We debated this event when it occurred. At that time I argued exactly this ... That if Israel had to intervene they had to do it properly, and be 100% sure they could avoid loss of life, indeed any harm, befalling the protesters...
If you review the debate you'll find that there were many voices saying that this was an unreasonable view. That Israel shouldn't be required to act conservatively, and cautiously. That harm that befell the activists was their own fault and consequences to Israel be damned.
And yet in hind sight, cautious careful intervention such as you describe could have saved Israel years of disengagement with Turkey and years of poor public opinion.Moreover, an apology this late in the day is better than no apology. But it still reflects the current Israelis government's bullying and insensitivity.
Its an attitude every director of the Shin Bet has described as unproductive. (The Gate Keepers documentary)

I do feel that any harm that "befell" the protestors are their own fault. It is sad that it happened. The protestors pushed the envelope, and the riot ensured, in which BOTH protestors and boarding team members were injured. Perhaps the protestors should not have pushed the issue also?

I said before how the boarding should have went. The fact that it did not go as well as it should have does not absolve the protestors from their portion of responsibility in the fracas.