- Image via Wikipedia
Israel has once again been subject to international condemnation. In this latest incident, Israeli forces attacked a flotilla of ships that were supposed to be carrying aid to Gaza. During this attack, people on the ships were killed and some Israelis were wounded. Not surprisingly, this incident has stirred up strong emotions. Some are even likening the incident to piracy.
On one hand, it could be argued that the act is one of piracy. On the face of it, attacking civilian ships in international waters and killing people seems to rather like piracy. After all, when the folks from Somali head out to sea to attack ships, they are regarded as being engaged in piracy.
On the other hand, it can be argued that the act was not one of piracy. After all, one key distinction between pirates and non-pirates is that pirates do not not operate under the auspices of a government. Of course, governments do authorize pirate-like activity, but this is called “privateering.” The moral distinction between piracy and privateering can (to say the least) be a very fine one. After all, whether a person is killed by a pirate or a privateer probably matters very little to that person. However, this can be a relevant distinction and perhaps could be used effectively to argue that the Israeli attack was not an act of piracy.
Another argument that can be given to defend Israel is based on the assumption that nations have the right to act in self defense, even in international waters. Presumably Israel regarded the flotilla as a threat and then acted in accord with that assessment. This, of course, raises the question of whether the act was a legitimate act of self-defense or not. If the flotilla presented an actual threat, then the attack might have been justified. Even if the flotilla did not present a legitimate threat, then the attack need not be piracy. It would, however, be an illegitimate attack and hence morally questionable (at best).
It could also be argued that even if Israel was not acting in self-defense against a threat, Israel was acting in what those in charge saw as being in their self-interest. Of course, a pirate can say the same thing. They, no doubt, think that their piracy is in their self-interest. However, this hardly makes their actions correct (unless, of course, that is what makes actions correct). However, acting incorrectly at sea need not be the same thing as piracy. And, of course, it can be argued that Israel was not acting incorrectly.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
Alan Dershowitz:
Although the wisdom of Israel’s actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/israels-actions-were-enti_b_596285.html
I think Paul Craig Roberts explains well the “ethics” of the Israeli state:
“The Israeli state has declared that anyone with a moral conscience is an enemy of Israel…”
http://counterpunch.org/roberts06012010.html
Hamas and Hezbollah have moral consciences?
Well, Sharia for us!
Why didn’t the crew fo the ship act like the ocrews on the other 5 ships did? They all went peacefully.
Perhaps they were alarmed by armed men dropping onto their vessel. They also might have been rather angry about the situation. Or maybe they are terrorists. Or something else.
i’m only saying that it’s difficult to assert that Israel just wante to kill people. The other vessels acted as you would expect “peacful demonstrators” to act: Peacefully.
If they just wanted to kill them, Israel could have just hit the ships with torpedoes of missiles and then commenced on a campaign of plausible deniability like N. Korea has done recently.
I would agree that the Israelis were not there to just kill people. As you point out, they could have just slaughtered everyone on the unarmed ships.
“On the face of it, attacking civilian ships in international waters and killing people seems to rather like piracy.”
That jumps ahead of a lot of things that happened.
What do people propose the soldier’s should have done when they were attacked with deadly force?
But why were they there in the first place? At sea, ships that are not in a state of war or engaged in criminal activities have a reasonable expectation not to be boarded in international waters. Perhaps the ships were there illegally, at war or engaged in crimes. If so, then boarding would be justified.
Israel erected a blockade to prevent Hamas from rearming. The purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade.
Blocking weapons is a reasonable defense operation. However, they should handle it a bit better if only for practical reasons (that is, to avoid handing Hamas yet another incident with which to drum up support and outrage).
if these videos don’t convince, nothing will:
http://soldiercitizen.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/1712/
The owner of the boat was a US based Brazillian film maker. She said their purpose was to basically force Isreal’s hand. Well, they got what they wanted.
So is it piracy when our Coast guard boards a boat to check for drugs?
By law, they cannot be pirates as long as the crew operates under the national flag.
If the Coast Guard has reasonable grounds for a stop and search, then that is fine.
Also, Isreal said they could come to a specific port where they could check the cargo first and they would be allowed passage by truck the rest of the distance. The protesters said no.
If so, that was their mistake.
kernunos,
Yes, that’s true. They offered to let them go to another port, sort through the cargo and deliver aid. But they refused. They wanted to break the blockade.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/03/AR2010060304287.html
I think this video is much more damning where the protesters are concerned.
Joe Biden…..that’s right, Joe Biden seems to be the only voice of reason coming out of the administration over the recent incident. They really need to put a leash on this guy or the truth may get out.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0610/Biden_solidifies_defense_of_Israel_Whats_the_big_deal_here.html?showall
Priceless.
This is truly awesome. I want a radio show and I’m going to open with this song, everyday.
I love that it’s a complete slam on people who just want so bad to believe that these people want peace.
Most people do want peace. I think it is like the Peters’ Principle (10% of the students cause 90% of the problem). In th case of conflict, 10% of the people probable cause 90% of the trouble. In some cases, they have reasonable grounds to do so. In other cases, they are acting in their own interest and dragging others into their game (like how Arafat became rather wealthy via his position).
Next time, the Love Boat needs a Exocet missile. If the N. Koreans can sink a S. Korean ship and kill over 50 sailors with no provocation and almost no political fallout, then Israel should do the same. I promise the enemy will stop this type of game in a hurry.
Instead, Israel plays right into their hands, waiting for these people to play to the left’s absolute and complete credulousness.
Remember? Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, too…..
North Korea does seem a bit like that crazy guy who does wild, destructive stuff…yet no one is willing to stop him. As you point out, condemnation of Israel is a popular pastime.