Putting aside the obvious strawmen (no one was arguing that there would “be no more Hamas,” or not a single rocket), what history has shown is that 3,000 rockets, missiles, and mortars landed in Israel in 2008 before the Gaza incursion, and that includes a lengthy cease-fire period. Since the end of the Gaza incursion, only about 200 projectiles have fallen in Israel from Gaza, and, I believe, none have caused physical injuries. Other commentators (but not Greenwald) have acknowledged that they were wrong about the efficacy of Israel’s military action.
But let’s repeat the initial point: Greenwald thinks that ANY military action that Israel may take against Hamas is illegitimate, and that Israel’s only proper response to whatever violence Hamas unleashes is diplomacy. If Hamas decides to adhere to its stated policy that its goal is the destruction of Israel and the exile of its inhabitants, and acts accordingly, Israel’s only resort is apparently to surrender.
And while we’re on the subject of Greenwald, here’s an interview with Greenwald in which he (a) claims that Israel’s boarding of a blockade-running ship violates international law because the ship was in international waters. Ruth Wedgwood, an actual expert in international law, then comes on to rebut him. I’m not an international law expert, and it’s not my cup of tea, but if you’re going to cite international law, you might as well get it right, and my understanding is that Greenwald is simply wrong here.
As was pointed out in the previous thread, if a ship is declaring an intention to run a blockade, it doesn’t matter where it is boarded. And the notion that this was piracy is ludicrous. Yes, this may have been a PR blunder of the first magnitude for Israel, but it wasn’t “illegal,” “piracy,” or a “massacre.” And of course, Israel is in the position of Caesar’s wife, and no matter what it does, other than surrender, it will be criticized.
[Update in the afternoon]
It’s Jenin all over again. As Mark Twain said, a lie will travel all the way around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
[Update a few minutes later]
Stopped clock alert. Joe Biden says that (unlike health care) the Israeli boarding was no big f’ing deal:
“[The Israelis have] said, ‘Here you go. You’re in the Mediterranean. This ship — if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we’ll get the stuff into Gaza.’ So what’s the big deal here? What’s the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it’s legitimate for Israel to say, ‘I don’t know what’s on that ship. These guys are dropping eight — 3,000 rockets on my people,'” Biden said.
Between this, and the comments of the Secretary of State, it looks like the administration finally realizes that they went overboard on their own recent Israel bashing. This won’t make their leftist base happy.
Following the link, we find more links to actual scholars in the legal and diplomatic fields that point out the legality of Israel’s action.
this may have been a PR blunder of the first magnitude
Or at least a PR disaster of the first magnitude, since it isn’t clear they should have foreseen this. Repeating this with the next ship (today or tomorrow I think) would be a blunder however. What should they do differently this time?
No one likes a victim who stands up for himself. People love victims because they give us a chance to show off our Concern and Caring without actually having to do anything about the victim’s situation. When the victim refuses to stay victimized (and thus the subject of our ostentatious pity), they are in effect saying to us “We don’t need you any more.” And we react like jilted boyfriends. Look at how the world reacted immediately after September 11th and then how the response changed as they realized we weren’t just going to cry about it. Look at how the world treats battered women who fight back against their abusive spouses. Look at how the Democratic Party treats blacks who speak out against racist policies like Affirmative Action (which in effect says “you can’t make it on your own, you need white people to give you a leg up”).
We love the underdog as long as they stay down there in the underground where we don’t have to actually interact with them. We love being able to have someone to use to flog our compassion credentials. Israel is a reminder to everyone that it’s all a scam — the world was content to sit by and let the Nazis off the Jews as long as they didn’t bother anyone else. But the Jews have a country now — they’re in effect saying to us “all your concern and caring for us is just status-whoring.” There’s nothing like a status whore scorned. This is why so many people hate Israel.
“The ship left Baltimore February 25, 1947 and headed for the Mediterranean.[2] With Palmach (Haganah’s military wing) skipper Ike Aronowicz as captain,[3] and supervised by Haganah commissioner Yossi Harel as the operation’s commander[4], it sailed with 4,515 passengers from the port of miggets Sète, France, a fishing town near Montpellier on July 11, 1947, and arrived at Palestine shores on July 18. The British Royal Navy cruiser Ajax and a convoy of destroyers trailed the ship from very early in its voyage, and finally boarded it some 20 nautical miles (40 km) from shore. The boarding was challenged by the passengers (the ship was in international waters where the Royal Navy had no jurisdiction), and so the British soldiers used force. Two passengers and one of the crews, 1st mate William Bernstein, a U.S. sailor from San Francisco, died as a result of bludgeoning and several dozen others were injured before the ship was taken over.”
All you have to do is swap British for Israeli and you have the same incident
Speaking of assclowns…
A few comments:
1) Recreating the Exodus incident was exactly the point. The British blockade was every bit as legal as the Israeli one is.
2) By the argument advanced on this blog, the British could have boarded Exodus 13 miles off of Baltimore harbor. Somehow I think that would not have set well with anybody.
3) As Megan McArdle points out, many of the proscribed goods in this blockade have no military value. “Fresh meat” and “seeds” are banned, for example. The purpose of the blockade is to punish Gazans, not to deprive them of weapons.
4) If you really want to argue that the “relief convoy” was a blockade runner, then they have every right to violently resist what is inherently a military action. (Blockades are de jure and de facto acts of war.)
Foreign policy isn’t one of my interests; but the eternal struggle of liberty versus the State is. And in this controversy it’s interesting to me that the biggeest State-humpers are almost always against Israel. The enemy of my enemies, etc..
“By the argument advanced on this blog, the British could have boarded Exodus 13 miles off of Baltimore harbor.”
Yes and it would have been legal. Like and dislike affect the legality how?
“The purpose of the blockade is to punish Gazans, not to deprive them of weapons.”
You know this how? Interesting to see the number of missiles have fallen dramatically since Cast Lead and the blockade. Cause, effect?
“If you really want to argue that the “relief convoy” was a blockade runner, then they have every right to violently resist what is inherently a military action.”
That kind of kills the “peace activist” meme, doesn’t it?
The purpose of the blockade is to punish Gazans, not to deprive them of weapons.
Because Chris psychically knows these things even though the facts suggest otherwise.
goods in this blockade have no military value
Chris providing red herring at no extra charge.
A blockade is an act of war justified in response to other acts of war like missile attacks on civilians. Running a blockade is an act of war subject to inherent risks.
Let’s cut the B.S.
The argument on the previous post on this subject was that the blockade was to “stop weapons smuggling.” How does prohibiting fresh meat or canned fruit or fishing rods(?!) relate to stopping weapons smuggling? The purpose of the blockade actually goes to the legality of the blockade.
Bill Maron – it may kill the “peace activist” meme, but it also kills the “attempted murder of Israelis” meme. Armed combat is not attempted murder.
Bilwick1 – I am not against Israel. However, I see the Gaza blockade as counterproductive. It does not weaken Hamas, it strengthens Hamas, by tightening Hamas’ grip on the territory.
How does prohibiting fresh meat or canned fruit or fishing rods(?!) relate to stopping weapons smuggling?
Exactly! Why didn’t the evil juice use their x-ray vision technology to see all that meat, canned fruit and fishing rods in the hold of the ship??
The solution just occurred to me. When the next ship tries to run the blockade they should sink it with a north Korean torpedo.
the blockade was to “stop weapons smuggling.”
Yes Chris, if you turn away or sink a ship, any weapons on it will not get smuggled… amazingly this is still true if there are no weapons on the ship.
The problem is the Israelis’ want to have it both ways.
In order for a blockade to be legal, it must be part of a declared war.
However, then it must be under the rules of war.
The rules of war prohibit punishing civilians in mass for military results.
The rules of war including the Geneva Convention require treating civilians under occupation “Humanely”.
Israel wants to claim the broad sword of war to justify their actions, but they don’t want to be blocked by the shield of the geneva convention.
essentially the Israelis have now found themselves in the mess the brits did during the Exodus incident.
Jack, war trumps legality. They aren’t in a mess at all. Is the world suddenly going to love Israel. No, it isn’t. Will the world love them less if they sink a blockade runner. Nope.
The worlds knee jerk reaction gives Israel unlimited freedom to act.
The rules of war including the Geneva Convention require treating civilians under occupation “Humanely”.
Which they have. Frankly, I wouldn’t be so concerned considering they elected Hamas to lead them.
Chris, since you seem determined to play dumb with us, I suppose you’ll need the whole thing explained out to you.
Iran wants to end the blockade so as to open a new route for shipping weapons to Hamas. So they try to break the blockade politically by sending a bunch of dummy ships filled with aid and “peace activists” to challenge the blockade and cause a bunch of bad PR for Israel when they board it. Wash, rinse, repeat until Israel lifts the blockade and stops boarding ships. Then you start smuggling the weapons.
“The argument on the previous post on this subject was that the blockade was to “stop weapons smuggling.” “
No, that was the strawman you kept insisting was “the argument” when people pointed out “One ship was actually prepared to repel boarders with numerous small arms.”
Nemo – you can actually run an inspection regime without a blockade. I’ve done it, in two oceans. You stop, inspect the ships, turn back only ships with prohibited goods on them, and the rest sail into port.
None of this requires banning the importation of fishing rods.
Al – sorry, slingshots don’t count as “small arms,” nor do kitchen knives.
You stop, inspect the ships, turn back only ships with prohibited goods on them, and the rest sail into port.
Chris, you’re becoming incoherent. That is a blockade. They have never prevented goods into the area, they just need to inspect them.
Plus, now you’re endorsing what Israel did.
You stop, inspect the ships..blah blah..
And what happens when during the act of stopping the ship to inspect it the inspectors are attacked by “peace activists” wielding knives, baseball bats and steel rods?
Oh wait, that is what just happened. Weren’t you paying attention?
Either that or they didn’t want to risk appearing utterly impotent by making demands for Israeli submission that they’ll never get.
Cecil
unfortunately Israel has been running the embargo for 3 years.
They’ve embargoed medical, ahricultural and humanitarian supplies.
the MV mavi marvara is not the first ship with humanitarian aid seized by the israeli military.
this is the first time it resulted in major bad press.
I knew a guy with 400 head of cattle embargoed and die while trying to take them to lebanon.
“Al – sorry, slingshots don’t count as ‘small arms,’ nor do kitchen knives.”
Well, they’re arms–or could be used as such (slingshots especially, since they’re used for hunting small game)–and they’re small.
Bill Maron – it may kill the “peace activist” meme, but it also kills the “attempted murder of Israelis” meme. Armed combat is not attempted murder.
The police officer defending himself from the robber is not engaged in “armed combat”. He’s defending himself from a criminal. The death of the officer is considered murder. The death of the criminal is not.
unfortunately Israel has been running the embargo for 3 years.
So tell me jack, how long have the Gazans been firing rockets into Israel? How long have they been sending suicide bombers into Israel, before the border was sealed?
But you’re right, the embargo has lasted too long. It’s time they end it with a fresh shipment of IDF tanks and troops sent into Gaza.
Cecil Trotter has a point. I think history shows blitzkriegs are more effective than embargoes in eliminating enemies.
Cecil
The Israelis can reduce the gaza strip to ash, just as the Nazi’s reduced the
Warsaw Ghetto to ashes in 1943.
That doesn’t mean they won’t be war criminals.
What would you suggest then, jack?
Shit Chris, I was trying to minimize the offensiveness with “small arms” without descending into the derisive “kitchen knives” labeling. Come up with an honest name for a group that looks like it includes a couple kukri and machetes – neither of which work well in the kitchen.
None of which is claiming “they were smuggling”, the only point with the freaking non-military-but-(minimally)-deadly-weapons is that the occupants considered themselves armed – and acted that way.
Here’s an interesting proposed solution:
http://volokh.com/2010/06/02/let-turkey-have-gaza/
I use a kukri and machete in my kitchen. My friends call me “Chef Rambo.” Maybe I should get a job as ship’s cook on one of those “peace flotillas.”
What is it with people using Nazi analogies about Israel? I find it a lazy and offensive exercise.
Bilwik, perhaps the Turkish Kurds need a new homeland?
Or, ken, maybe the Armenians need a new homeland.
Oh, wait a minute . . .
That doesn’t mean they won’t be war criminals.
No, but what DOES mean they’re not war criminals is the fact that any operation in Gaza will be in response to the acts of war perpertrated on Israel by the Gazans, acts that ARE those of war criminals IE indescriminate rocket/suicide bomber attacks on civilians.
Anyone who really thinks Gaza is the offended party in all of this is a complete moron.
Bil
You asked what Israel can do about Gaza?
no answer is optimal.
but my nickel opinion is pull back to the 1967 boundaries,
establish a pretty tough border screen but create a
secure highway so that traffic can move between Gaza and the west bank
rapidly and securely (Think like the roads to berlin from West Germany).
then tolerate the occasional incident.
North Korea just sank a South Korean warship. The ROK’s are trying
hard to not turn that into a major incident. Sure the ROK’s could
go animal on the DPRK, but for what purpose?
Gaza and the West bank provided they don’t host egyptian or syrian armies won’t prove to be an existential threat to Israel. As long as Istrael can be sure that Nukes aren’t entering the Gaza, they can leave it alone to hash out it’s own troubles.
Let Gaza and the West Bank try to develope economies based upon
trading with Egypt, Jordan, syria, they certainly have failed as a labor export
economy to Israel.
Israel failed in a 40 year occupation of Palestine, they are failing in an embargo, perhaps they should try a studied indifference. Do the Israelis want to try on Genocide as a solution? God Forbid.
From a game-theoretic point of view, the main thing wrong with the various approaches taken to unregenerate Palestinian bloody-mindedness over the past 40-odd years is that their terrorist leadership has never been presented with irrevocable disincentives to bad behavior. It has commonly been the case, throughout history, that aggressive nations, once defeated in war, are deprived of territory as punishment. Germany, after both World Wars is an instructive recent example. The Palestinian terrorist leadership, however, have yo-yoed up and down over the years in terms of the amount of territory over which they exercised effective sovereignty in Gaza and the West Bank, but the trend line has been, generally speaking, upward in recent years. Is it any wonder bad behavior continues and grows worse? Rather than rewarding continued terrorism with land – most notably, e.g., the withdrawal from Gaza – the Israelis should announce a unilateral policy of Palestinian land seizure based on future aggressive acts. I suggest the following schedule:
(1) For every munition lobbed into Israel or terrorist bomb smuggled in and detonated – whether or not it results in casualties – Israel will confiscate a piece of Palestinian territory equal in area to the nominal kill radius of said munition.
(2) For every injured person, Israel will confiscate the kill radius area or one hectare, whichever is greater.
(3) For every person killed, Israel will confiscate 10 hectares.
(4) For every person kidnapped, Israel will confiscate 100 hectares.
Let the Palestinians decide how big a country they are willing to behave themselves to keep.
I recommend taking the land assessments entirely from Gaza until the Palestinians either learn some manners or Gaza is entirely forfeited. All terrorists ever do with a seacoast is smuggle in weapons anyway. If the would-be Palestine insists on putatively endless aggression, at least they can be incrementally deprived of one important avenue of resupply by which it can be supported.
jack, if the reconquistas demanded Arizona, would you advocate ceding them everything south of I10 and accepting the occasional rocket attack or incursion into Phoenix?
jack: then tolerate the occasional incident
And if the “occasional incident” cost the life of a member of your family? Or if the “occasional incident” killed dozens? A few hundred? 9/11 was only an isolated, “occasional incident” taken in the context of the past 50 years, so we should have ignored it too?
You are an idiot jack, plain and simple. Tolerating acts of WAR on your people only encourages more acts of war. Anyone who can read the history of the 20th century and from it can’t deduce that simple truth is an idiot.
If the situation started absorbing 100,000 army soldiers on patrol,
and we were in constant bloody struggles with angry locals and
no political solution had been found, i’ d want to avoid a
GAZA at pretty much any price.
The British got themselves mired down in Northern Ireland until
they settled a political accord with the Good Friday Agreements.
The British and Irish had been slanging it out since what, the time of Plantagenets?
Indonesia is slanging it out with the Timorese, they finally got to a UN Settlement.
India and Sri Lanka have been dealing with the Tamil Tigers, and lets not forget the Tamils blew up 2 Indian Prime Ministers. What would happen in this country if 2 american presidents were blown up by Puerto Rican Nationalists.
India and Pakistan have been dealing with Kashmir and Islamic Terrorism, and lets not forget that 20 islamic terrorists seized chunks of Bombay and were slaughtering people for 72 hours, under the direct supervision of Pakistani Intelligence staff. What would happen if Mexican Extremists working with Mexican Federal Police were driving around LA machine gunning people in hotels around Santa Monica?
the French and Spanish spent 40 years fighting Basque terrorists.
All of these represented at some point vicious military campaigns
and occupations, and finally political settlements were made.
I’m sure the Good Friday Accords were called Moronic by many people in the run up to them.
Military Occupations end with Annexation or Withdrawal, that’s how they end. You can Annex and co-exist, you can Annex and Exterminate,
You can Withdraw and install a puppet governmnet or you can Withdraw.
The Russians annexed the Baltics for 80 years, they withdrew.
The Russians withdrew from much of eastern europe but installed puppets.
Later with the collapse of their puppet governments, they gave up
trying to dominate the eastern states.
The Russians are dealing with the Chechen occupation and it’s miserable.
Israel is not unique, and it will have to figure out what it needs to do.
jack, the various “Palestinian” groups all have the same goal: Israel, and every Jew with it, wiped from the planet.
How do you “co-exist” will people like that?
Dick Eagleson,
I’ve felt that way for awhile.
1) Declare peace.
2) Random nasty thing happens -> immediately declare war -> move the massive fence at the northern edge of Gaza 50 feet south.
3) Declare peace.
Repeat until clue.
Al, isn’t that more or less what they’ve been doing since ’48?
Set borders, be attacked, kick ass and take land, set new borders, rinse, repeat.
JP
How did the Belfast accords get settled? The constitution of Ireland used
to specifically call for the annexation of Northern Ireland.
Yet, somehow, the people made peace.
The Nazis tried their damnedest to exterminate a whole lot of people,
and yet the germans live in peace with the french, the Poles, the Italians,
today.
It’s not easy to solve when both sides start from an extreme position, yet, somehow it gets done.
it doesn’t matter what their goal is, as long as you can actually live with them. My cat every now and then has a goal of slashing my wrists, yet,
somehow I live with him, and I don’t go to war with him.
The North Koreans have a goal the annexation of south korea and they have been at a state of war for 60 years. Yet somehow the north and south
live with each other.
The Spanish had a goal for 100 years to exterminate the basques,
yet the Basques found a compromise.
The English were determined to exterminate the scots, passing laws against their language, dress, culture, leadership, yet somewhere along the way
the english and scots made peace.
with the mindset of the middle east, the scots would still be carping about William Wallace.
jack, nothing in the Middle East will ever change until the Arabs love their own lives more than they hate the Jews. Negotiations won’t do it, concessions won’t do it.
You mentioned the Nazis; it took the rest of the world reducing Germany to ash and rubble to get them to stop. I fear Israel will need to take similar methods to get their neighbors to stop attacking them.
jack likes to mention Nazis, what he evidently is too stupid to realize is that the group of people along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea most akin to Nazis reside in Gaza and Southern Lebanon.
Later with the collapse of their puppet governments, [the Russians] gave up trying to dominate the eastern states.
This is news to me.
It’s not easy to solve when both sides start from an extreme position
What part of not wanting your civilian population killed is an extreme position? Wanting to live in peace is an extreme position?
jack,
The Arabs want to exterminate the Israelis because the Arabs are tribal barbarians and extermination is the default method by which groups of tribal barbarians who find themselves at odds deal with one another. It was true of Native Americans and continues to be true in modern Africa and the archipeligos of the Pacific. Rwanda in the mid-90’s was not an aberration, it was just a particularly high-profile example of business as usual in a tribalist milieu.
The current wave of Islamic militancy worldwide is most readily understandable as the last bloody stand of tribal barbarism as a viable organizing principle for human society against civilized modernity. Tribal barbarians have been losing ground to peoples who have evolved superior social orders since the time of the Egyptian Pharoahs. Islam is the ostensible issue because it happens to be the religion of the vast majority of surviving tribe-based cultures, worldwide. All three of the Mosaic religions were invented by tribal barbarians, but Islam is the only one of the three that has remained, for the most part, the faith of tribal peoples.
There are only two ways in which conflict between tribal and civilized social orders has ever been resolved; conquest or transformation. In most of the world, civilization has conquered and/or transformed the tribalists.
You mentioned England vs. the Scots. The process in that particular case involved both conquest and transformation and took roughly 7 centuries, from shortly after the Norman conquest of Saxon England until the suppression of the Bonnie Prince Charlie uprising of 1741. It wasn’t until the Scots fully accepted the English form of civilized social order that they, in many important respects, took over and ran the British Empire during its glory days.
Alas, things went less happily in the Middle East. There, the tribal barbarian Arabs conquered the extant civilizations in the area and imposed Islam without being much transformed by their new subjects. Islamicized, the civilizations of the Middle East remained going concerns for another three centuries or so before succumbing to the willful ignorance and anti-intellectual parochialism of their tribalist masters. Thus began a semitic Dark Age, now a millenium old and still very much in effect, that its heirs now see, correctly, they must either impose on the rest of the world or perish. As the Islamists see matters, they beat their la-de-dah civilized opponents 1300 years ago when Islam was born and, by Allah, they can do it again! It’s an existential struggle that’s going on here and Israelis vs. Palestinians is just a small piece of it.
The great unfinished job of civilization is to eliminate tribal barbarism from the world. As a social order, tribal barbarism is simply incompatible with civilization. Unlike civilization, tribalism doesn’t scale up. There have been evanescent empires amassed by tribalists in the past – Ghenghis Khan’s being the largest – but none has lasted beyond the death of its builder. Tribalism is inherently fractious and aggressive. It is the default system of human social organization. It’s even embedded in our genome. But we are also clever creatures and have figured out better ways to live. Tribalism is to social orders what the Neanderthals are to human history – a dead end. The great unfinished job of civilization is to render tribal barbarism extinct. This means recruiting what tribalists we can and killing the rest.
Excellent post Eagleson.
Sadly the days of “conquest or transformation” seem to be over, it isn’t politically correct to effect the “conquest or transformation” of an evil group of barbarians, now in the enlightened 21st century we’re supposed to “understand their culture” instead. That so called enlightenment will cost the lives of millions at the hands of islamic (all lower case on purpose) madmen before we come to our senses. At some point, when all civilized peoples have been pushed far enough by the atrocities of islam, we will lose some of our civility for a time and strike back, releasing hell on them.