When William Hague released his first statement about the confrontation this morning we didn't know a lot about what had happened. With growing evidence that the conflict was driven by a violent attack on Israeli soldiers by the "peace activists" on the boat, he needs to issue a new statement that better reflects that reality.
While it is reasonable that the statement earlier today talks about discovering "whether enough was done to prevent deaths and injuries", it does not properly balance that with a condemnation of attempts to force the Israeli Defence Force to use lethal force. And it does not reflect the evidence that the soldiers were responding to a clear threat to their lives.
Hague's current statement, despite the diplomatic language, is unfair on Israel and needs to be replaced. By suggesting that Israel is diplomatically isolated, it will encourage Turkey in actions that would constitute a massive escalation, such as sending new ships under guard from the Turkish navy. That would be incredibly dangerous and very much against Britain's interests.
The evidence emerging suggests four important considerations that should inform a new statement:
1. The activists on the boat were preparing for violence and described martyrdom as a "happy ending"
This is from Al Jazeera, via Palestinian Media Watch:
As Tim noted earlier, the group that arranged the boat on which the confrontation took place are known to be radicals.
2. The soldiers were seriously assaulted
It is impossible to think that this kind of assault would not have resulted in one or more of the soldiers dying if they had not used their guns to defend themselves, instead of the paintball guns they used initially:
There is more video like that out there which shows a similar picture, Israeli soldiers being beaten with metal sticks and stabbed. Would anyone want our soldiers to avoid defending themselves with their firearms if they came under that kind of attack?
3. This was not "piracy" or anything of the sort
See this blog from Standpoint. Blockades are frequent during conflicts. One was set up during the Falklands, for example. Video Tim posted earlier shows that the Israelis did offer an alternative way of moving the aid in an attempt to defuse the situation.
Israel's only other options were to give up the blockade, which would make it impossible to prevent Hamas rearming, and might necessitate another war to prevent rocket attacks on Israel. Or to take even more aggressive action to stop the ships. Unless we expect Israel to accept attacks on its territory (would we sit back and accept rockets being fired at us from France?), then they need to defend themselves. There are legitimate reasons to disapprove of the blockade, and think it is causing huge problems in the short and long term, but Israel has not been offered good alternatives.
4. The Israelis main mistake may have been to use insufficient force initially
This site sets out what may have been the main mistake made by the Israeli Defence Force:
"It appears that the error in planning the operation was the estimate that passengers were indeed political activists and members of humanitarian groups who seek a political provocation, but would not resort to brutal violence. The soldiers thought they will encounter Bilin-style violence; instead, they got Bangkok. The forces that disembarked from the helicopters were few; just dozens of troops – not enough to contend with the large group awaiting them.
The second error was that commanders did not address seriously enough the fact that a group of men were expecting the soldiers on the top deck. Had they addressed this more seriously, they may have hurled tear-gas grenades and smoke grenades from the helicopter to create a screen that would have enabled them to carry out their mission, without the fighters falling right into the hands of the rioters, who severely assaulted them."
This is important to bear in mind when reading calls for greater restraint. Greater initial restraint can - when facing people intent on violence - mean that a greater degree of force has to be used later on when a situation gets out of control.