In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

On the Flotilla Disaster

Jill

I’m not going to write too much about this, but here a few articles that may be of interest:

Peter Beinart, not exactly an uber-liberal, writes that we shouldn’t blame the Israeli commandos for the flotilla disaster; we should look at Israel’s right-wing leaders, and their American supporters.

The New York Times op/ed page takes a fairly even-handed response, calling for an investigation and pushing Obama to take a stronger stance.

Tom Friedman writes something typically ridiculous, which seems to be based primarily on who his friends are and what happened when he was in Istanbul this one time. In a post which is truly a thing of beauty, Alex Pareene rips the column apart, and oh-so-accurately describes Friedman as “a barely literate cartoon mustache of oversimplification whose understanding of global politics is slightly less comprehensive than a USA Today infographic and who possesses about as much insight into world events as a lightly vandalized Wikipedia stub entry.”

Megan McArdle — also far from being a staunch lefty — further elaborates on Beinart’s point that the Gaza blockade isn’t only about preventing terrorism (although obviously that’s part of it), but is also a form of collective punishment.

Jeffrey Goldberg is more sympathetic to the Israeli position on this one.

Mattbastard also points out that the flotilla disaster is a side issue, and the real problem is the Gaza blockade.

Daniel Drezner doesn’t mince words when he says that Israel’s response is just fucked up.

Bradley Burston at Haaretz says that Israel is no longer defending itself; it’s defending the siege.

Finally, the importance of context when looking at the videos of the raid.

59 thoughts on On the Flotilla Disaster

  1. The latest online edition of Jewish Week calls it a “Flotilla Fiasco” and the editorial starts, “For those of us who care deeply about Israel – and feel revulsion at the way it is demonized in an uncaring, hopelessly biased world – the past few days have been disheartening.” Gosh, I wonder why Israel’s being demonized? Could it be because they’re acting demonic? No, must be that the REST of the world is uncaring and biased.

  2. There’s a decent article on Slate, at http://www.slate.com/id/2255572/ which makes some fairly cogent points.

    For example, the question of whether Israel should blockade Gaza at all is a very valid and important one. But as Shmuel Rosner points out, so long as the blockade does exist, there is really very little question about whether random ships should be permitted to breach it. There was about zero chance that those ships were going to be allowed through, or that they should have been allowed through a blockade.

  3. Acting demonic? Idiotic might be a better description. That probably wasn’t the best way to handle it.

    “”A violent response from Israel will breathe new life into the Palestine solidarity movement, drawing attention to the blockade.”

    Yep, this definitely wasn’t anticipated, hoped for, or provoked by the activists.

  4. I don’t think Tom Friedman writes article on the Middle East that doesn’t run with that formula.

    further elaborates on Beinart’s point that the Gaza blockade isn’t only about preventing terrorism (although obviously that’s part of it)

    I think Beinart and others have made fairly clear that the Gaza blockade isn’t really about preventing terrorism at all, despite what Israel may have you believe.

    Rosner was in his classic Israel-apologia form:

    Whether Gaza is entitled to jurisdiction over its shore is another worthy debate. But it also has nothing to do with the failure of the Israeli government to effectively enforce its policy.

    Seriously, this is even debatable? The Israeli policy is illegal, there is simply no grey area in this regard, “should have” holds water with the Israeli government only.

  5. Right != legal. A blockade is a legitimate military act between two warring parties. If you accept that Israel and Gaza/Hamas are at war – and all indications say they are – then there is nothing preventing Israel from blockading its enemy’s ports.

    The situation in Gaza is inhumane, untenable, and a complete disaster for both parties (the Gazans in the short run; Israel in the long). But there is no easy way out for either party. And there is very little the United States can do – including cutting aid to Israel – that would significantly improve relations between the two warring parties.

    Instead, we should be putting much more pressure on Israel to make concessions and come to an agreement with Fatah which allows for a viable (i.e. contiguous and sovereign) Palestinian state in the West Bank, along with a lasting peace agreement there. I think only then can Israel, Egypt, the U.N., etc. come to a resolution regarding Gaza.

  6. Gosh, I wonder why Israel’s being demonized? Could it be because they’re acting demonic? No, must be that the REST of the world is uncaring and biased.

    A few thousand years of oppression and hate have a way of shaping cultural attitudes and identity.

  7. Dave: If you accept that Israel and Gaza/Hamas are at war – and all indications say they are – then there is nothing preventing Israel from blockading its enemy’s ports.

    And there’s nothing preventing allies of Gaza from attacking Israeli forces.

    As Israel attacked a civilian Turkish vessel in international waters – an act of war – and Turkey is a NATO member, and the Treaty of North Atlantic obliges all parties to come to each other’s aid against aggressor nations, if the US wants to remain a NATO member, the US is now at war with Israel.

    Of course this isn’t going to happen – for whatever bizarre reason, the US had rather lose NATO than lose Israel – but that’s that. If Gaza and Israel are at war, the US’s treaty obligations now bring the US in against Israel, on Gaza’s side.

    “War” is a self-exculpatory way for Israel to put it. Israel is running an apartheid state with the world’s largest concentration camp.

  8. Jesurgislac: Israel attempted to board a ship which was trying to run a declared blockade, and bloodshed ensued. Nations are explicitly allowed to do this – in international waters, if need be. The other six ships were boarded and searched with no violence.

    And while the current situation is a humanitarian crisis, it’s hard to call Gaza a “concentration camp” in an “apartheid state” when Israel has relinquished all claim to the land, pulled its civilians and occupying military units out, and is now fighting a limited armed conflict with it. Invoking Godwin’s law is non-productive, and ignores other important facts, such as that Egypt is also participating in the blockade (and is therefore, by definition, at war with Gaza).

    It also ignores the fact that one of Hamas’ stated aims is the eradication of Israel and its people. So even conceding the notion that Israel is evil, it only means that both sides are being run by genocidal maniacs.

    This is a conflict between two ethnic groups who hate each other. Israel has Gaza cornered, but doesn’t know what to do with it. Gaza is radicalized, and won’t stop attacking Israel. Because Israel is more powerful, a stalemate is reached, and the Gazans suffer and become even more radicalized. Dissolution of either state is a non-starter, and internal political pressure prevents either government from moderating significantly.

    Do I know how to fix things? No. Do I think current U.S. policy in the region is productive? Definitely not. But calling one side or the other the devil isn’t going to get us any closer to a solution.

  9. As an Israeli, I’m used to being ashamed at my country making horrid violations of human rights.
    Making such violations while causing unthinkable damage to our own interests, as our lunatic government perceives them, is – I must confess – quite new.

    further elaborates on Beinart’s point that the Gaza blockade isn’t only about preventing terrorism (although obviously that’s part of it)
    actually, the blockade is good for terrorism. Since there’s a blockade, there’s a vast array of tunnels beneath the gaza-egypt border, used mainly to deliver food, but as useful in delivering rockets. this array existed before the blockade, but was way smaller.

    Israel attacked a civilian Turkish vessel in international waters
    technically speaking, we didn’t. the mavi marmara sails under the Comoro flag.

  10. Nadav: as someone living “over there” – do you have any hope that this mess can one day be settled? Is there something you think the U.S. could do to help? What political issues have to be resolved before those things could happen?

  11. Dave: Israel attempted to board a ship which was trying to run a declared blockade

    No, it didn’t. Israel attempted to board a ship before the ship had attempted to run Israel’s blockade of Gaza: the ship was in international waters. When military force is used to board a civilian ship flying another country’s flag, in international waters, this is either an act of war or an act of piracy. If the military forces were acting according to orders from their government, or their government is willing to take responsibility, then it’s an act of war. (Israel appears once again to have been allowed to investigate itself and declare itself innocent…)

    , and bloodshed ensued. Nations are explicitly allowed to do this – in international waters, if need be.

    Yes, in wartime. Not in peacetime. In peacetime, nations are explicitly not allowed to do this until the ship is inside the nation’s territorial waters. At that point, Process Ensues: and due process does not include a military boarding.

    The other six ships were boarded and searched with no violence.

    Yeah: I gather they were outnumbered, and so made no resistence to the Israeli’s act of war.

    And while the current situation is a humanitarian crisis, it’s hard to call Gaza a “concentration camp” in an “apartheid state” when Israel has relinquished all claim to the land, pulled its civilians and occupying military units out, and is now fighting a limited armed conflict with it.

    If Gaza is an independent state, it has sovereignity over its borders – land, sea, and air. It does not: Israel has never permitted that. The most accurate description of Gaza is a concentration camp: the largest one ever known. THe most accurate description of Israel, including the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, is an apartheid state. Israel is the 21st century’s South Africa, and should be treated as such until it dismantles the walls around its concentration camp, and acknowledges all inhabitants of Israel as Israeli citizens, including the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    Invoking Godwin’s law is non-productive,

    I agree: so don’t do it again and I’ll pretend you didn’t this once.

    such as that Egypt is also participating in the blockade (and is therefore, by definition, at war with Gaza).

    Egypt participates in the blockade for a number of reasons, the key one of which is: Israel wants to keep Gaza as a concentration camp, the US supports Israel no matter what, and the US is Egypt’s largest aid supporter. There are additional reasons, of course, which I’d be happy to discuss if you’re going to be reasonable now.

    It also ignores the fact that one of Hamas’ stated aims is the eradication of Israel and its people.

    So? Hamas is the democratically-elected government of the Gaza Strip. If Gaza is a sovereign nation, Israel is engaged in a massive act of collective punishment of all the inhabitants of Gaza for the crime of some – and “crime” being that they voted for a party that won an election. Democracy in the Middle East: the US is agin it.

    The Bush administration started a war with Iraq that has killed over a million people. Does this mean every American deserves to be punished for the actions of the Bush administration – including the ones who never voted Republican?

    Pointing at Hamas and going “But they’re GENOCIDAL MANIACS!” is one of those unproductive comments, like your previous little attempt to invoke Godwin’s law.

    The only sane long-term resolution to the conflict in the region is for all of the mad parties – both the successful ones that want Israel to remain a Jewish-dominant apartheid state and are succeeding in their goals, and the unsuccessful ones that fantasise that they can wipe out every Jewish citizen of Israel – to be dismissed by the inhabitants as the crazies they are. There needs to be a unified. non-apartheid, non-concentration-camp state in that region, with citizenship not dependent on religion or race.

    But calling one side or the other the devil isn’t going to get us any closer to a solution.

    Then stop doing it: and stop trying to pretend other people are doing it, too. That’s equally unproductive.

    Nadav Perez: technically speaking, we didn’t. the mavi marmara sails under the Comoro flag.

    Then I guess NATO stands or falls depending whether Turkey wants to let Israel/the US off on a technicality.

    Making such violations while causing unthinkable damage to our own interests, as our lunatic government perceives them, is – I must confess – quite new.

    If it’s any consolation, which it probably isn’t, I think the mission was – from that Israeli POV you identify as “lunatic” – a rousing success. Israel successfully kept humanitarian supplies from reaching their concentration camp, and established that the US will side with them even when Israel attacks a NATO ally. Really, it’s a win, win, win – from that specific POV.
    “In simplest terms, this is tantamount to banditry and piracy. It is murder conducted by a state,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said ahead of the session. BBC

  12. (I’m considered extreme left here. don’t take my views as Israeli consensus, or anything near)

    I’d begin by being optimistic: anyone living in Israel or Palestine in the 90’s, saw the national mood switch from ‘all Arabs wish to kill us’ to ‘make love, not war’ in 1993 – and then switch back in 2000. If I didn’t believe it could switch back, I wouldn’t be raising my kids here.

    Having said that, things do look grim here. The flotilla affair’s only the tip of the iceberg – There’s a massive wave of semi-fascism over Israel, including imprisoning (and possibly torturing) Israeli-Arab leaders and threatening professors who teach non-Zionist papers in class. Accompanied by the utter decimation of the political left in recent elections, it’s hard being optimistic.

    US coming to its senses (as in Obama replacing Bush) did give some hope, but every time Clinton states again that ‘we’re strategic allies’, that hope goes one step back. We don’t need US as an ally, we need an impartial judge.

    Although sometimes, after extra-nationalistic surges here, I tend to think that the only thing that would help is some South-African BDS treatment. The Israelies like to think of themselves as enlightened democrats; maybe being cut from the globalized economy we’re so dependent upon will do us good (but then again, maybe it will only make us more righteous and fortified in our opinions).

  13. Jesurgislac:
    Then I guess NATO stands or falls depending whether Turkey wants to let Israel/the US off on a technicality.
    As we’re dealing with law and treaties here, technicalities are everything. Israel did not attack a turkish ship; Israel did not declare war on Turkey; Turkey cannot invoke article 5 and bring NATO into war with Israel. (I didn’t check on the flag of the other 5 ships, so the situation might be different).

    Israel successfully kept humanitarian supplies from reaching their concentration camp
    No, they didn’t. Mubarac opened the raffah crossing, and aid is flowing freely now. And anyway, the blockade will fall soon.

  14. Jesurgislac:

    The term “concentration camp” in reference to Israel is very obviously loaded, even if the word has historically meant many things that may or may not apply. I think it’s unreasonable to act surprised when somebody takes it as a Nazi reference and calls you on it. Kind of like it’s not okay to paint Swastikas on a casino to symbolize luck, and then when somebody calls you on it you say “no, YOU’RE the one bringing up Hitler. I’m just drawing Sanskrit art.”

  15. Uh, maybe we could refrain from using ableist descriptors (i.e., “crazies,” “lunatics”) for the belligerents in the conflict. If anything, the bloodshed seems fairly well-considered–sadly.

  16. Curious what others here think of the aid provision as a tactic. To me, it seems like classic and smart nonviolent confrontation. A lunch counter sit-in for our age.

    What reminds me of the lunch counter sit-ins is the win-win nature of the tactic.

    Lunch counter -wise, if the opposition backs down and serves you: win. If the opposition violently attacks you — for something as simple as asking to be served in a restaurant like white people — then their naked, oppressive racism is exposed and helps to galvanize a greater movement. Win.

    This is what I see happening thanks to the courageous people on that vessel. If their aid is permitted through: win. If the opposition violently attacks them — for something as humane as bringing food and medicine to a population lacking both — then, again, naked oppression is exposed and the violence takes one more step toward exhausting itself.

    This is a tactic motivated by love, not animosity. That’s why, even including the activists onboard who fought back against the Israeli commandos, I think it is a wonderfully inspiring example of how we can extend our legacies of nonviolent action movements into today.

    Frankly, it makes me want to get on an aid flotilla to Gaza. Just like I would have joined the sit-ins in Greensboro.

    Imagine hundreds of young American Jews doing that as an alternative to our Birthright trips.

    Anyway, curious to hear folks’ thoughts on the value of the tactic.

    Wishing everyone well.

  17. Nadav: the things you mention about the suppression of Israeli Arabs and of academics is troubling. I did not realize that Israeli politics had gone so hard to the right since 2000; I figured it was a natural if unfortunate swing (like us putting conservatives in power after 9-11) that would be corrected in a later election.

    Jesurgislac: you’re not making a lot of sense. At first, you criticize Israel for employing what are effectively genocidal tactics, but then say it doesn’t matter if the Palestinians elected a government that wants to do the same thing. Also, regarding your point about Iraq: the United States, under the command of an elected government, declared war on a sovereign nation and killed up to 1M of its people – yeah, if it were a fair fight and Iraq were able to fight back then I’m sure they’d be bombing the hell out of our cities right now. That’s what happens in war – it’s why we try to avoid war.

    Let’s not pretend that war between nations is anything other than what it has always been – bloody, brutal, and without any meaningful rules when the existence of one side is threatened. Israel sees Hamas as an existential threat, and they will do what is necessary to contain or destroy that threat. If we were living in a less enlightened time or even talking about a different country, the result would have already been genocide.

    It doesn’t make what’s going on right or good, but it is the reality, and it’s hard to fault either side for taking the position that it does. The problem with Israel is that it is going beyond war to – as you’ve said – a spiteful collective punishment. The problem with Hamas is that it is unable or unwilling to negotiate. Both of those situations must be resolved before there can be any hope of an end to the situation.

    In some ways, talking about Israel as an apartheid state minimizes the complexity of what’s going on there. In an apartheid state, there is a possibility for peaceful resolution through a fully democratic process, if the dominant group is willing to cede power. Israeli Jews don’t have that option; ceding power would not result in a single secular, democratic state, but rather a massacre, just as the current situation is resulting in a slow massacre of the Palestinians in Gaza. Nobody in their right mind would agree to that, just like nobody would try to form India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh into a single democratic state.

  18. Just read #13: Nadav, do you think that a tactic like this is redundant and ill-conceived, then, given that aid is freely flowing in other channels? I’m asking very openly — no passive aggression. Just curious for your opinion. And very glad to hear that you’re maintaining your optimism, and keeping in mind the cycles and switches in national mood. I think that’s a great and often-overlooked point, that even popular perspectives can and do change over time.

  19. Jesurgislac, as a Jew with relatives who died in the Holocaust, I ask that you stop calling Gaza a concentration camp. First off, it’s a derail, as it shifts the discussion from what’s happening right now to what the criteria are to qualify as a concentration camp. (“Does it need to have X? Does it need to have Y? Well, Gaza has X but not Y…”) Secondly, as Nadia Abu Karr said on SPEAK!, the situation is big enough to stand on its own, without the Nazi comparison. I agree that Israel is or is trying to become an apartheid state, but if you want to keep the Nazi comparison, calling Gaza a ghetto would be more accurate.

  20. kloncke (#14): it is important to note that the Mavi Marmara passengers did NOT engage in a non-violent tactic, unlike the passengers in the other ships.
    This topic is quite hot in extreme-left Israeli circles: did this make them less agreeable?
    on the moral side: we do hold of principles of non-aggression. but we also believe that if the raid was illegitimate, the passengers had the right of self-defense.

    on the tactical side: on the international level, I think that this event questions the conception that non-aggressive tactics are more effective. If the Mavi Marmara passengers woud’ve acted like the other passengers, the story would’ve got no more than a few second of media attention. The violence brought the event to every news outlet around (and to here: would feministe write about the flotilla otherwise?)
    but on the intra-Israeli level, the violence made it hard to many left-wing Israelis to side with the protesters. When you see someone wearing your country uniform fighting someone else, and being hurt, it’s hard to side with the opposition.
    (#16): I didn’t understand. what ‘tactic like this’?

    Julie (#17): I must agree. bad metaphore. I used it above (inside a quote) and am sorry for that.

  21. Jesurgislac, as a Jew with relatives who died in the Holocaust, I ask that you stop calling Gaza a concentration camp.

    Julie, as a Brit who acknowledges with pain that my nation invented concentration camps – in South Africa, the Boer war, 1903 – I would ask you to consider whether you really have a right to say that no other concentration camps may be identified as such.

    Nazis used concentration camps. So did and do other nations, before and since.

    If you do not wish concentration camps to be identified by name if they are not being run by Nazis, what shall we call them?

  22. Nadav Perez 6.3.2010 at 2:02 am

    kloncke (#14): it is important to note that the Mavi Marmara passengers did NOT engage in a non-violent tactic, unlike the passengers in the other ships.
    This topic is quite hot in extreme-left Israeli circles: did this make them less agreeable?
    on the moral side: we do hold of principles of non-aggression. but we also believe that if the raid was illegitimate, the passengers had the right of self-defense.

    When people do a sit-in, then they hold the moral high ground.
    When people initiate violence, they lose it.

    The issue of the raid’s legitimacy is, of course, based on the blockade’s legitimacy. But if you think it’s not legitimate there are proper ways, and improper ways, to raise that.

    Just as you can’t generally attack a cop because he’s trying to enforce a law that is illegal (you need to deal with the law in the courts) you can’t generally make a proof of international law by trying to force your way through a military blockade, or by physically attacking those enforcing it.

    If you do, and if you are deliberately trying to provoke a confrontation, you can’t claim self-defense.

  23. I have to agree with Jesurgislac that concentration camps have not only been used by the Nazis. The United States, for example, has used concentration camps at various times, including for Native Americans in the 19th century and for residents and citizens of Japanese descent in the 20th century. Since World War II, the term “concentration camp” has become closely associated with the Nazi Holocaust, but the reality is that many groups, not limited to the groups identified, persecuted and murdered by the Nazi regime, have suffered interned in concentration camps. Perhaps it would be more productive to discuss whether the term “concentration camp” is applicable in this case rather than limit the usage of the term to the concentration/death camps of Nazi Germany.

  25. @Melinda, @Jesurgislac: Maybe its just because I grew up in a Shoah-addicted country, but when you say ‘concentration camp’, I hear Auschwitz. and so do (almost) all Israeli Jews. To an Israeli, saying ‘Gaza is a concentration camp’ is the same as saying ‘you are Nazi’.
    so unless that’s what you’re trying to say, the term is unproductive, even if historically accurate (which I think it isn’t, but that’s another story)

  26. To an Israeli, saying ‘Gaza is a concentration camp’ is the same as saying ‘you are Nazi’.

    Okay, I recognise that as a real problem, and certainly I don’t want to make discussion unproductive.

    I do think that Gaza is a concentration camp: “A camp where civilians, enemy aliens, political prisoners, and sometimes prisoners of war are detained and confined, typically under harsh conditions.”

    My request was a real one: if we cannot use the term concentration camp to describe Gaza because Israelis will think they are being called Nazis and that will derail the discussion (which is never a good thing), what term can be used to describe the internment of Palestinians within the guarded compound that the Israelis have made of the Gaza Strip?

    Would internment camp work?

  27. Nadav, by “this tactic” I meant bringing aid through an avenue where you pretty much know you’re going to be stopped and prevented.

    And even though they brandished clubs and knives, I would still count the people on the Mavi Marmara as nonviolent since the Israeli marines tried to commandeer their ship first, in international waters. Definitions of nonviolence vary somewhat, and ours may be different, but I think the best kind of nonviolence is not pacifist: if someone is attacking you, you can defend yourself.

    The ways in which the defense happens get into subtler questions about how we view proper nonviolent engagement (i.e. motivations of life-destruction vs. life-preservation), but I don’t think the fact that the activists pushed back against the commandos means the action was violent in its conception.

    Plus, it doesn’t seem like comparing the Mavi to the other ships in the flotilla helps us much since the Mavi had, like, what — almost 600 of the 700 total activists in the flotilla? So it doesn’t seem like there was much chance of the others resisting Israeli takeover, given their small numbers. But maybe I’m mistaken about something there.

    And yes, I think your point is really important — if the passengers on the Mavi hadn’t defended themselves, thus intensifying and exposing the violence of the Israeli commandos, then none of this international outrage would have occurred. So the militancy and self-defense became key.

  28. What’s wrong with saying “blockade”? It’s perfectly accurate and descriptive. Why reach for “concentration camp” or “ghetto” or anything, when “blockade” is really so very accurate?

  29. I agree that “ghetto” is a reasonably accurate description of Gaza that doesn’t have all the baggage of “concentration camp.”

  30. Ruchama, I’ve seen enough people say that “ghetto” is meant to conjure up images of the Nazis. And enough pictures with Gaza and the *Warsaw* Ghetto side by side. I really wish I could find the interview with the professor from UC Irvine who said the comparison was wholly inaccurate but sent out a whole series of such pictures to his students purely for the emotional effect.

    Google “Gaza ghetto” or some variant, and you’ll see plenty of instances, including cartoons by Carlos Latuff. The UNHRC’s Richard Falk has explicitly compared Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto. An article at Electronic Intifada by Columbia professor Joseph Massad, “The Gaza Ghetto Uprising” is headed with a photo lableled “Nazi troops round up Polish Jews during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in May 1943.”

    It is slightly more accurate. But, still, there was never any two-state solution, agreed to in principle by most Germans, wherein the Warsaw Ghetto would eventually become self-governing as part of it’s own country. Not to mention the differences in population growth between the two “ghettoes.” The Warsaw Ghetto simply cannot be separated from the overall Nazi project of eradicating Jews worldwide. I think the baggage more than outweighs the accuracy.

  31. Why is this being called “self defense” ?

    “Self defense” and “property defense” are not the same. Let’s not forget that. “Commandeering” a ship to bring it to harbor, and “attacking” its occupants are different things.

    Perhaps folks are taking the term loosely–“proactive” self defense. That’s basically taking the position that its’ OK to attack the soldiers, because the soldiers might have been planning to attack the occupants of the boat (all 600 of them) and harm them (even though they didn’t harm the other ones) and… well, i’m not too sure about that.

    But even if you take that position, of course, doing so makes it ridiculous to take the position that Israel can’t proactively deal with a bunch of hostile ships that have clearly stated their intention to run a blockade*. And it makes it equally ridiculous to take the position that soldiers who are attacked by a group of people–it will never be known for certain who initiated the interpersonal violence–can’t fight back. Proactive runs both ways.

    * Any in any case, I think the “international waters” thing is a red herring: I don’t think that many of the people who are diligently raising that point would respond any differently if the ships had been 12 miles off the coast. Would a change in the place where the ship got boarded change your opinion of events? If not, then the place is a side track, and you should stop talking about it.

  32. My request was a real one: if we cannot use the term concentration camp to describe Gaza because Israelis will think they are being called Nazis and that will derail the discussion (which is never a good thing), what term can be used to describe the internment of Palestinians within the guarded compound that the Israelis have made of the Gaza Strip?

    Would internment camp work?

    I’m sympathetic to your underlying argument, but you’re doing it a pretty serious disservice here.

    Several people have said that Ghetto works well. If you’re really looking for a Nazi parallel (given the extreme nationalism, movement towards fascism, violence, and racism Israel’s government has been showing lately, its not necessarily an inappropriate point) the Warsaw Ghetto is a much more similar image than Dachau or Auschwitz especially if you’re also making apartheid comparisons. It seems like you’re reaching for the most outrageous term you can find and its undercutting your argument because its historically inaccurate. More importantly, it gives you nowhere to go in the future. As bad as Israel is behaving right now it could potentially get far worse and if you immediately move to the most inflammatory term you can find now then you have no way of communicating an escalation of violence in the future.

    Put another way, if you call an “assault” “attempted murder” then the particular assault you’re calling attention to will get more attention. At the same time, though, people will be distanced from the horror of the attack because it won’t be as bad as they expect from the term applied to it. Over time, the concept will be devalued and instances of assault will be seen as somehow less serious as your poor choice of words proliferates. Worse, when you do eventually have an actual case of attempted murder most people will assume that its just another case of assault because you’ve muddied the terms. Words mean things.

  33. Jesurgislac, I would second Ens @ 14 and Nadav Perez @ 25. I would also point out that we are now in almost the exact type of derail that I predicted.

  34. @Sailorman: As the raid was performed in International water, Israeli forces has no legal power over the ship. therefore, the israeli commandos raiding the ship had no legal authority. had the raid been in Israeli water, he situation would have been vastly different (part of what I called earlier ‘unthinkable damage’ earlier.

    @kloncke: When I say ‘non-violence’, I think Gandhi and MLK. no violence whatsoever. you can’t be gandhi if you hold a club.
    However, one of the hebrew blog posts I read recently, after the attack, pointed out that the notion that peace activists and freedom fighters should be non-violent is quite a recent one. being violent is sometimes very legitimate.

    @Jesurgislac
    If we’re getting at the issue of accuracy, I think ‘concentration camp’ is highly inaccurate. To put it simply: Gaza’s not a camp, and no one have been concentrated there.
    Gaza is not a camp, or at least, major parts of it aren’t. there are refugee camps there, but that’s a differnt issue. most of the Gaza strip is an urban area, where people where born and lived their whole life.
    no concentration – Israel did not put anyone into gaza, in order to detain them (well, at least, it didn’t do it since the 1950’s).

    so I really can’t see the historical comparison here.

    1. I’m going to put the kabosh on the “concentration camp” discussion. I think it’s been thoroughly hashed out, and it’s a de-rail. Please refrain from referring to Gaza as a “concentration camp” in future comments. There are plenty of other words to use.

  35. @Sailorman: As the raid was performed in International water, Israeli forces has no legal power over the ship. therefore, the israeli commandos raiding the ship had no legal authority. had the raid been in Israeli water, he situation would have been vastly different (part of what I called earlier ‘unthinkable damage’ earlier.

    That’s certainly a widely debated point. I’m not an expert in international law. I’ve been reading arguments on both sides which seem fairly good; there are some good scholars writing on it at the moment. I’m leaning towards the “legal” conclusion but it’s not an obvious one.

    From a moral standpoint, it’s also difficult: if a ship is approaching a line and has openly stated their intention to cross a line, and it seem obvious that they will, how necessary is to stand there and politely wait for them to cross the line, before acting?

    That’s an important question: On the one hand, we don’t want countries to engage in preemptive strikes. But on the other hand, the closer someone gets to the protected target, the more protective that the target becomes, and the more inflamed that things get. The point of maintaining an active outer perimeter is to discourage higher level conflict by, in theory, permitting you to use less forceful means. To use a classic example, disputed borders have signs, then light towers, then fences, then razor wire on top of the fences, and only then the gun towers. The hope of that setup is NOT to shoot people.

    When you have to make a border smaller, you also have to have a speedier force escalation to prevent people from crossing it.

    IOW: if the ships got past the blockade and materialized 1/4 mile off the Gazan coast, the Israelis might have sunk them, or they would have dropped commandos ready to shoot. Way outside Israel, they sent aboard a team of soldiers who were apparently expecting not to have to use paintball guns. (Nobody anywhere is seriously alleging that Israel or the solders ever went on board with the intent to use live ammunition. (And on that note: many people who are complaining about violence are functionally complaining that the Israelis were not violent enough to avoid being overwhelmed by attackers, and having to shoot them. Of course, if the Israelis had dropped tear gas or used rubber bullets or bag shot or water cannons or what have you–thus precluding escalation–most of those same people would be complaining that they were too violent.)

    That’s relevant, because in practice international law arguably permits a lower-level preemption in the face of stated intent to break a blockade. If those 7 ships had said that they were fishing boats, Israel would have had to leave them alone. If they had said they were going to Egypt, Israel would have had to leave them alone. But they left port with the stated intention to break a blockade and that matters here.

  36. “But if you think it’s not legitimate there are proper ways, and improper ways, to raise that… Just as you can’t generally attack a cop because he’s trying to enforce a law that is illegal… you can’t generally make a proof of international law by trying to force your way through a military blockade”

    Yes you can. This is an explicitly legitimate tactic. Blockades have to be consistently enforced or you lose the right to perform them (a bit like trademarks). So you can undermine the validity of a blockade on by demonstrating that ships can pass through unchallenged. The Israeli navy also aren’t cops and and a blockade isn’t some sort of traffic law. There’s nothing illegal about ignoring a blockade or to trying to run it. It’s the people performing the blockade who have to justify their actions, not other users of the sea.

    ‘“Why is this being called “self defense” ?… Self defense” and “property defense” are not the same. Let’s not forget that. “Commandeering” a ship to bring it to harbor, and “attacking” its occupants are different things.’

    Commandeering a ship is performed by subduing the occupants. It’s clearly a detention. It’s perfectly proper to use force to escape or resist unlawful imprisonment.

    ‘But even if you take that position, of course, doing so makes it ridiculous to take the position that Israel can’t proactively deal with a bunch of hostile ships that have clearly stated their intention to run a blockade.’

    There’s nothing hostile about this, it’s perfectly legitimate to try and pass through a blockade, and those not carrying contraband (in this case weapons) are entitled to be able to pass through. Israel’s of course entitled to search the ships, or try and stop them if they refuse; they’re not entitled to do what they did – declare the coast closed to all traffic, commandeer the ships, seize them, and detain the occupants.

    “Any in any case, I think the “international waters” thing is a red herring… Would a change in the place where the ship got boarded change your opinion of events?”

    I think you’re right. This is basically the difference between robbing a bank, and breaking the speed limit on your way to robbing a bank.

  37. There’s nothing illegal about ignoring a blockade or to trying to run it. It’s the people performing the blockade who have to justify their actions, not other users of the sea.

    Sure there is. If the blockade is proper, then people can’t run the blockade. That’s what a blockade is. Whether you choose to call the running of a proper blockade “illegal” is really a matter of semantics, and depends on what laws you’re choosing to enforce.

    Commandeering a ship is performed by subduing the occupants. It’s clearly a detention.

    Yes. And a detention and an attack are different. Being arrested by the police and being beaten by the police are different. Being “subdued” is only necessary if you’re fighting to begin with. Are you suggesting that they are the same?

    It’s perfectly proper to use force to escape or resist unlawful imprisonment.

    Really? If you ever get arrested and you think you were arrested wrongfully, feel free to take a swing at the cops; be sure to llet me know how that works out. But of course that’s the U.S., and they haven’t condemned the attacks in the same manner. What do you think would happen if you tried resisting a law you thought was illegal in any of the countries which are so up in arms about the right of the passengers to attack the soldiers, hmm? You think a Turkish citizen feel free to take a swing at the Turkish cops if she’s arrested in violation of the Turkish constitution?

    But in any case: people are not the arbiters of the law. Judges are the arbiters of the law. Most countries provide that the proper challenge of a law is to bring it before the courts, not to engage in violent resistance.

    And on that same note, do you believe, then, that it is improper to use force to escape or resist lawful imprisonment? So if a majority of legal scholars or judges or whoever agree that the blockade was lawful, you’ll happily condemn the passengers? I would hope so.

    There’s nothing hostile about this, it’s perfectly legitimate to try and pass through a blockade,

    Er, no it’s not. It depends on the type of blockade.

    and those not carrying contraband (in this case weapons) are entitled to be able to pass through.

    Where exactly are you getting this rule?

    Israel’s of course entitled to search the ships, or try and stop them if they refuse;

    OK, now I’m confused. First I thought you were saying israel couldn’t board the ships. now you’re saying Israel can stop them. Which is it?

    [but] they’re not entitled to do what they did – declare the coast closed to all traffic, commandeer the ships, seize them, and detain the occupants.

    Are you aware that Israel offered to allow the ships to dock, to inspect the cargo, and, AFAIK, to deliver the cargo to its final destination in Gaza?

    The argument here wasn’t whether the cargo could get to its destination, it’s a question of how it could get to its destination.

    But in any case, you just said that Israel was entitled to stop the ships and to search them. So i’m not sure where you’re going here.

    “Any in any case, I think the “international waters” thing is a red herring… Would a change in the place where the ship got boarded change your opinion of events?”

    I think you’re right. This is basically the difference between robbing a bank, and breaking the speed limit on your way to robbing a bank.

    Well then, why are you discussing it?

  38. Sailorman–

    Israel doesn’t allow building materials into Gaza. One of the things the flotilla was carrying was concrete and steel, to rebuild the many ruined buildings that are STILL destroyed from the last round of attacks.

    To quote from this article:
    (http://www.merip.org/mero/mero060110.html)
    “The “Freedom Flotilla” was carrying, among other items, cement for the reconstruction of the 6,400 Palestinian homes that were razed or damaged in the winter of 2008-2009. The World Health Organization counts some 3,500 families as displaced by the bombing, more than a year later. The Israeli assault exacerbated the effects of the years-long siege, which has sent the already impoverished strip into downward spirals of human misery. In May 2008, the WHO estimates, 70 percent of families were living on less than $1 a day; 10.2 percent of Gazans were chronically malnourished; and 67 percent of young people were jobless.”

    So the offer to bring the supplies into Ashdod was somewhat disingenuous. Yes, food would have made it through, and certain medical supplies. But not much else. Besides which, of COURSE this was a larger gesture, not merely targeted at delivering the aid. Civil rights sit-ins were gestures as well.

    Regardless, the takeover of the ship could have been accomplished with much less loss of life. The soldiers should never have been on the ship–they could have fouled the propellers. Or if not, put enough bodies on the ship, heavily armed enough, near enough to the pilot house, to take the ship over as quickly as possible. So basically, a bad military decision which resulted in a tragic loss of life. Whether the blockade itself is legitimate is a diff. issue.

    From a political perspective, I can’t see how Israel could have let the ships run an established blockade. It takes away their power in the situation. To retain control of the situation, the blockade will have to come down on their terms, or not at all. Letting the ships run the blockade would have been a ludicrous political/security idea.

  39. Being arrested by the police and being beaten by the police are different.

    Maybe if you’re white, sufficiently respectful, non-aggressive, middle class, not being arrested during a raid, and the police involved aren’t having a bad day. Some of us refuse a clearly illegal search and end up smashed face first into the hood of their own car hard enough to take skin off your forehead, while handcuffed and not resisting. See, the problem with unaccountable armed thugs is that they tend to what they please, they get violent when they don’t get their way, and the people who dispatch them to do violence tend not to care when people get hurt.

    Really? If you ever get arrested and you think you were arrested wrongfully, feel free to take a swing at the cops; be sure to llet me know how that works out.

    So if a thug can get away with it because no one is willing to stop them…its OK just so long as the thug in question has a shiny badge? Or don’t you mean to say some variation of “yeah, try to resist, then tell me how proper it was when you’re picking up your teeth…”? Either might makes right, in which case I have the right to ignore laws because I’m bigger and stronger than most police, or it doesn’t and we want to discourage thuggery regardless of what clothes the person with the club is wearing. You can’t try to play it both ways.

    What do you think would happen if you tried resisting a law you thought was illegal in any of the countries which are so up in arms about the right of the passengers to attack the soldiers, hmm? You think a Turkish citizen feel free to take a swing at the Turkish cops if she’s arrested in violation of the Turkish constitution?

    Just because you have petty violent men on both sides of an argument doesn’t mean that you can’t call them on petty violence. You’re obfuscating.

    But in any case: people are not the arbiters of the law.

    Wrong, people are the law. People sit on the juries, people cast the votes, people make up the judges, write the laws, and sit on the juntas. Put enough people together and you have a revolution. People are, and always will be, the final arbiters of the law. The law is not an objective thing, but the current winds of public opinion. It is routinely manipulated, ignored, selectively applied, and changed.

    Most countries provide that the proper challenge of a law is to bring it before the courts, not to engage in violent resistance.

    What court do the people on this flotilla have access to? The court of the country which attacked them? A country which already runs it’s own shameful apartheid system that they were trying to break?

    Yeah, and I’m sure if you scroll on the front page a bit and find the story about black people being excluded from juries in the south you’ll find that everything is above board there too…

  40. Sailorman, james made valid and coherent points. The legality of the blockade is debatable, commandeering a boat in international waters is illegal, and people being commandeered have the right to self-defence because the people boarding their boat are acting unlawfully.
    The justifications for the action – the flotilla was funded by militants, we told them we would do bad things if they kept going, they attacked us first, there were 40 mercenaries on the boat, we offered to give the aid to Gaza for them- don’t obscure that. Neither does manipulating james’ words and insinuating he is confused.

    Acts of civil disobedience are always dangerous, because the risk that deadly force will be used against protestors is high. The papers are reporting Israel is going to loosen the blockade. Someone is putting pressure on.

    The worst thing about this? Both sides will use it as an excuse to hate and fear each other more.
    I’m going back to the taco and otter thread.

  41. Israel did not attack a turkish ship; Israel did not declare war on Turkey; Turkey cannot invoke article 5 and bring NATO into war with Israel.

    Agreed. Turkey can’t have its cake and eat it. Was that ship under their authority (in which case why the hell was Turkey so blatantly fucking with Israel?) or wasn’t it (in which case they will just have to put up with it being treated like the other ships.)

    Blockades have to be consistently enforced or you lose the right to perform them (a bit like trademarks).

    Isn’t this… exactly what Israel did? I’m not saying I agree with the blockade but I’m also not particularly shocked that, once a blockade is in place, it will be enforced. Israel’s not in a comfortable, secure state where they can be like “oh, okay, well… ha ha ha just don’t do it again! We’ll totally arrest you for real next time! No kidding!” That would undercut their (tenuous) position far too much. The activists were absolutely trying to force Israel into this situation; they “won” this round by making Israel choose between looking like an ass and looking weak.

  42. Sailorman: Are you aware that Israel offered to allow the ships to dock, to inspect the cargo, and, AFAIK, to deliver the cargo to its final destination in Gaza?

    Are you aware that Israel refuses to pass certain items through to Gaza? Seeds aren’t allowed: the internment camp inmates might try to grow their own food. Dried fruit or canned food isn’t allowed: internment camp inmates aren’t allowed long-term supplies. Materiel to repair buildings isn’t allowed: once the military running the camp destroy a building, it’s supposed to stay destroyed.

    Among other petty details, the aid sent by the flotilla included battery-powered wheelchairs. The chairs were allowed through: their batteries were not.

    Claiming “oh, Israel would allow aid through legitimate channels” kind of precisely misses the point: Israel will not permit many items through at all: Israel rations the food which its internment camp inmates are allowed to receive.

    From a moral standpoint, it’s also difficult: if a ship is approaching a line and has openly stated their intention to cross a line, and it seem obvious that they will, how necessary is to stand there and politely wait for them to cross the line, before acting?

    Politely? You don’t have to be polite about it. You can stand there and curse and swear and call them names. But you do have to wait until they actually cross into your territorial waters before you are allowed in law to demand they stop and allow you to board and search your hold.

    Israel does not own the seas. No country does. Israel had no least little jot or tittle of right to board a ship in international waters – doing so was either an act of piracy or an act of war. Israel gets away with it because the US is on Israel’s side. That’s all.

    Had Israel waited to board the ship until the ship had reached the territorial waters off the coast of the Gaza, doing so would have been a clear statement that Gaza is an internment camp in Israel’s possession, not a sovereign state with the right to maintain its own borders – since if Gaza were a separate and independent state, it would have been Gaza’s coastguard or navy with the right to board and check cargo, not Israel.

    If the blockade is proper, then people can’t run the blockade. That’s what a blockade is.

    Israel has a right to declare that it will enclose an area of its country and decide for itself what will and will not be allowed in. Every other country in the world has a right to point and say “That is an internment camp you are running, and it is a crime against humanity” and work in the usual international ways to relieve Israel’s non-citizens and support them politically to equality and release from this camp.

    If Israel claims that the internment camp is actually a kind of subordinate nation within its own borders, and it’s actually imposing a blockade on that subordinate nation, then other countries have a right to say “we don’t accept that blockade” and attempt to send goods in to relieve its suffering. It’s legal for Israel to impose a blockade: but Israel doesn’t own the world, and it’s legal for other countries to defy the blockade.

    Part of the reason why we were having this argument earlier is that part of the way Israel justifies its treatment of Gaza, and the Palestinians on the West Bank and East Jerusalem, is by switching the legal status of Gaza / the West Bank to be whatever best justifies their actions.

    Matt mentioned the “two-state solution” but that’s no solution: nearly half the population of Israel, the Palestinian half, don’t want a two-state solution. They want freedom and equality within their own country. The only workable solution here is a one-state solution: the Israeli government must accept the Palestinians living within the West Bank and the Gaza Strip as Israeli citizens with the right to vote and to serve in the military, to own property and to build homes, to leave and to return to their own country.

    The Occupied Territories have been occupied for all of my life. They have been effectively a part of Israel now for more than half the time the modern state of Israel has existed. They are what makes Israel an apartheid state. Calling for a “two-state solution” merely ensures Israel will continue to allow itself to set up internment camps and call them subordinate nations with Israeli military control over their population and their borders.

  43. Just to be clear, Israel didn’t choose between looking like an ass or not. They killed people.

  44. Sailerman wrote:

    And on that note: many people who are complaining about violence are functionally complaining that the Israelis were not violent enough to avoid being overwhelmed by attackers, and having to shoot them. Of course, if the Israelis had dropped tear gas or used rubber bullets or bag shot or water cannons or what have you–thus precluding escalation–most of those same people would be complaining that they were too violent.

    Any amount of violence in defense of this blockade is indefensible, because the blockade itself is indefensible.

    By putting up a blockade, Israel makes it inevitable that it will be put in the position of defending the blockade with violence, and that people might be killed. (Even non-lethal weapons carry that risk). Regardless of what maritime law says, we need to ask, is it morally acceptable to kill people in order to collectively punish the people of Gaza for how they voted in the last election? To make sure that the Palestinians in Gaza don’t have fabric, or seeds, or nutmeg, or fishing rods?

    If the blockade were narrowly constructed to keep out deadly technology — rather than broadly constructed to strangle Gaza’s economy — then I’d say the deaths would have been justified (but then again, the activists would not have tried to break the blockade in the first place). But no amount of violence is acceptable when the purpose of the violence is the defense of the indefensible.

  45. Are you aware that Israel offered to allow the ships to dock, to inspect the cargo, and, AFAIK, to deliver the cargo to its final destination in Gaza?

    The argument here wasn’t whether the cargo could get to its destination, it’s a question of how it could get to its destination.

    First of all, you can’t be certain that Israel would have let all the cargo through; Israel’s policy stops all sorts of things from being imported to Gaza, not just weapons.

    Second of all, I’d say “the argument’ here is over if Israel has a legitimate right to maintain this blockade at all. That argument is not legal, but moral. If the activists had allowed Israel to inspect and decide to let in the supplies (or not to), they would have been in effect conceding that Israel has the right to keep Gaza from importing canned fruit and violins and rope and wood and everything else Israel has decided Palestinians can’t have.

    The activists’ goal isn’t to get this one batch of supplies to Gaza. The activists’ are trying to break the blockade. If you understand that, it’s obvious why they couldn’t and shouldn’t have given in to Israel’s “offer.”

  47. When I say ‘non-violence’, I think Gandhi and MLK. no violence whatsoever. you can’t be gandhi if you hold a club.

    I always find it jarring when people throw out this idealized version of nonviolence which is unrealistic and stems from a lack of understanding of the Indian struggle for independence. Nadav, what you are describing is pacifism, not nonviolence. Gandhi was a pacifist, but not all his followers and not all of the Indians participating in nonviolent civil disobedience were. Nonviolent protests against the British would frequently erupt into people instinctively trying to defend themselves by whatever means necessary, the key being that they didn’t go there armed or with the intention of blowing up the place. There were other sets of Indian revolutionaries who were doing that. The British in turn would retaliate by jailing Gandhi every time such violence happened. While most of the history of Indian independence movement was violent retaliation, the 40s had become mostly nonviolent civil disobedience under Gandhi’s leadership. But it was not predominantly pacifist.

  48. Just out of curiosity: Has everyone here watched the videos?

    I’ve watched a few videos.

    What bugs me is that neither side — not the activists, and not the Israelis — has yet released the full, unedited videos that they have. This makes me think that the full, unedited videos includes things that both sides would rather not be seen.

  49. The reason most liberal Jews advocate a ‘two state solution’, rather than a one state solution, is the fear of being outnumbered and no longer maintaining a Jewish state (generally the fear of living in a Muslim state instead is brought up). Whether that’s right or wrong can be talked about, but that’s my impression of why the ‘two state solution’ is as far to the left as most Israelis will go.

  50. This makes me think that the full, unedited videos includes things that both sides would rather not be seen.

    Certainly. the Israelis did end up shooting people, which–surprise!–isn’t on the Israeli video. And the passengers appear to have planned and tried to hurt and/or kill the Israelis, which–surprise!–isn’t really on their video either.

    That said, the Israelis are smart not to release it. At the moment, there are a lot of people who (for various different reasons) are entirely sure that Israel was in the wrong. They’re calling for an investigation under false pretenses: they don’t plan to change their mind no matter what the investigation showed, they just want more ammo for their fight.

    In the first few hours of press releases, you could see the move of those people from “Israel killed unarmed pacifists!” to “Israel killed pacifists!” to “oh, well, maybe the people violently attacked the Israeli solders, but violent resistance is OK here, and israel shouldn’t have incited the violence by attacking first” to “well, by attacking we really mean boarding a ship” and so on. Where do those goalposts get such swift feet?

    Both sides are hiding the ball. But from what we know, it seems like public perception is of the Israelis is at least reasonably accurate factually, fr the major things: blockade, boarding, fighting, shooting. The public perception of the “pacifists” on the ship is not; lots of people don’t know or don’t accept that they were also extraordinarily violent. The passengers have more to lose by disclosing all their footage.

  51. When I was in Israel several years ago on an organized trip, we saw several politicians and journalists speak, and at least two of them told us some variation of this:

    There are three things that an ideal Israel would be: it would be a Jewish state, it would be a truly democratic state, and it would be on all the land of “Greater Israel” (which means Israel plus Gaza and the West Bank.) In the real world, getting any two of those three things is possible, but all three at once just won’t happen. The left wing is willing to give up the land, and the right wing is willing to compromise on being a democracy.

  52. Sailerman, I don’t share your apparent certainty that we pretty much know what happened. In particular, the major disagreement between Israeli and activist accounts — whether there were any Israeli attacks made prior to the boarding — is something that none of the released videos show for sure. (The activists videos, taken belowdecks, may or may not be from before the commandos boarded. The Israeli videos, taken from outside the ship, begin after the commandos have begun dropping.)

    In my earlier post, I criticized the activists for not releasing more video. However, since then, I read on a NYTimes blog that the IDF confiscated all the video and photos the captured activists were carrying. (Only those that were uploaded to the internet before the Israelis took over the ship are available). If that’s true, then Israel should release all the documentation — their own, and the captured documents.

    Finally, I of course agree with you that many people are going to be critical of Israel no matter what. I hope you’ll acknowledge that there are also many people who will take Israel’s side no matter what, even if they need to move a goalpost or several to do so.

  53. In particular, the major disagreement between Israeli and activist accounts — whether there were any Israeli attacks made prior to the boarding

    I’m not sure “activists” is the right word, what with it’s usually-liberal quasi-positive implications, and its other implications that these weren’t actually fighters of some sort. I assume that you’d not like them referred to as “Hamas supporters;” I’ve recently settled on using “those on the boat.”

    Seriously though, the major disagreement appears to be whether those on the boat were justified in trying to run a known blockade, with an existing offer of a land alternative, and then attacking the israelis when they tried to enforce it. Everything else is just gravy.

    If the Israelis are justified in blockading and forcing a transfer to land, then they’re justified in pretty much anything to enforce it. you can’t have a blockade and let people through. And the reverse is also true.

    But in any case, when discussing unknown facts I think it’s important to focus on finding out facts which are determinative. If the israelis attacked first, does that make the people on the boat’s response OK, no matter how violent? If the Israelis didn’t attack first, does that make the people on the boat’s response unwarranted? Etc.

    I hope you’ll acknowledge that there are also many people who will take Israel’s side no matter what, even if they need to move a goalpost or several to do so.

    Of course. But those people don’t appear to be posting in this thread.

  54. If the Israelis are justified in blockading and forcing a transfer to land, then they’re justified in pretty much anything to enforce it

    The big problem with that is that the blockade is rooted in a deeply problematic situation who’s only precedents are ones Israel would rather not rely upon (indeed, cannot rely upon if they wish to maintain their status as a modern democracy). Right now Israel denies the existence of a Palestinian state and claims the land it is blockading as it’s own while at the same time treating it as a belligerent. You can’t even really claim the situation is a civil war because of the way in which Israel denies citizenship and movement. Instead what you have is a quasi-state that is contained within another state and is treated as having whatever status the more powerful party finds convenient at the moment.

    A blockade is valid if you have a war, but to have a war you have to have an enemy nation. A blockade could also be valid in the event of a civil war, but if you have a civil war you have to recognize the civilians within the rebelling territory as citizens. The Palestine situation doesn’t really fit either of those.

    A second problem facing Israel is that the blockade is fairly vague and the distinctly punitive feel we tend to associate not with a military blockade but with sanctions. Supplies which are not military in nature are barred, implying that this is not about security or a war effort but about imposing some sort of group punishment. This situation is especially disturbing because the kinds of supplies restricted are often restricted both without seeming regard to reason and with what appears to be an eye towards making those within the blockade dependent upon highly perishable crops. Essentially, Israel is setting up a siege in which it has the ability to restrict not only a range of quality-of-life items but also basic items like food. If the Palestinians become too difficult Israel can always slow the import of perishable goods, thus sapping the food supplies because they have removed the possibility of growing crops or storing nonperishable foods.

    There aren’t a lot of justifications for this kind of action and these types of behaviors and goals have tended to be the tools not of liberal democracies but of totalitarian regimes. Since these methods are being used against their own people (though Israel equivocates even on that) Israel ends up in a very exclusive, and universally repugnant, club. Restricting food in one’s own country when there is no real scarcity and in order to control the populace is something that the worst monsters of the Communist era, the Balkan villains, African kleptocrats, and other criminals of that order do. It is simply not something we can accept in a country that would like to have it’s seat at the table of the modern world.

    This is especially troubling because of what Israel is. Israel is a dream, it is a place where one of the most maligned and abused peoples in history were given in order to prevent another in a long line of genocidal events. As a nation Israel was born of moral superiority, it is the ultimate “right thing to do.” To fall so far, and to replicate so many of the crimes that it’s very existence became necessary to defend against, is a double tragedy.

  55. Just to be clear, Israel didn’t choose between looking like an ass or not. They killed people.

    I think Israel did both.

  56. “Sure there is [something illegal about ignoring a blockade]. If the blockade is proper, then people can’t run the blockade. That’s what a blockade is. Whether you choose to call the running of a proper blockade “illegal” is really a matter of semantics, and depends on what laws you’re choosing to enforce.”

    Go on then. What law have they broken? Name it.

    You just don’t understand the legal mechanics of a blockade. I think you’re assuming it’s like like domestic law, where if two sides are in a confrontation on the same law and one is acting lawfully then the other as a matter of logic has to be acting unlawfully. This does not apply here.

    Performing a blockade may be legal or illegal – a state and its military are subject to international law, the laws of war, and the laws of the sea. (I happen to think this blockade is being performed illegally: I can’t see what entitles them to declare the coast closed to all traffic, commandeer the ships, seize them, and detain the occupants). But there’s no legal obligation to comply with a blockade – what law would this be illegal under? The blockading nations civil and criminal laws don’t hold because they’re extra-territorial, and the laws of war don’t apply to civilian sailors of a non-belligerent party who are engaging in trade.

    As I say there’s no legal obligation to comply with a blockade. But there are lots of legal obligations on the blockading power, many of which have been ignored in this case.

  57. This gives me hope:

    The German-Jewish organization Jewish Voice for Peace in the Middle East is preparing a Jewish flotilla to the Gaza Strip. “We intend to leave around July,” a member of the organization, Kate Leitrer, said to Ynet. “We have one small craft so far, in which there will be between 12 and 16 people, mostly Jews.”
    Leitrer, herself Jewish, said there was great interest in joining. “Getting another boat means more expenses, and we’re discussing this possibility,” she said. “Because of limited space, there will be school equipment, candy, and mainly musical equipment, and there’ll be musicians aboard who’ll teach the children of Gaza. They need to see that Jews are not what how they are drawn in their eyes.”

  58. @james

    It’s more like a chess game than a “legal” or “illegal” situation.

    The blockaders have certain obligations, the neutral merchant ships have certain obligations. Breaking those obligations isn’t necessarily a crime, but they entitle the blockaders to legally take other actions.

    A blockader has an obligation to announce the blockade, to warn neutral merchant ships that are apparently trying to run the blockade about the blockade. To ask them to either turn aside or be subject to search. If the ships turn aside, the blockader has to let them go, no search, no stop, no nothing.

    If the ship refuses to divert, then the blockader has the right to search it for contraband. If that can be done at sea, the blockader has to do it there. If it can’t (big containers that need a crane), then the blockader can divert the ship to a port where it can be searched. At that point, the blockader gets to confiscate contraband, then sends the ship on its way with the rest of the cargo.

    If the ship clearly refuses to stop for search, or to divert away from the enemy territory, then the blockader has the right to capture the ship. Capture means they legally get to keep the ship after they take it. Any cargo that is contraband becomes property of the blockader. Any non-contraband stays property of the original owners.

    If the ship resists capture, the blockader can use whatever force is necessary to capture it. If capture is impossible, the blockader can attack the ship (sink it).

    At every stage, no one has committed a crime, just how the rules play out.

Comments are currently closed.