My father has a piece up at the Oxford University Press blog arguing that Israel was justified in its actions regarding the flotilla to Gaza. I'm not convinced by the argument. The situation seems complicated especially in that it is not clear that all the items that Israel is not letting are items that could be used to make weapons. The Israeli blockade has stopped hostilities, but it goes beyond that, effectively preventing the maintenance and rebuilding of Gaza's sewage treatment and power plants (See this summary). If the blockade was narrowly tailored to save Israeli lives it would be more morally defensible.
It seems that given the large amount of shouting about this issue, that this is not a bad opportunity to discuss some unambiguous facts about the current situation.
First, it is clear that the blockade has worked to protect Israeli lives. Rocket attacks from Gaza have become nearly non-existent after the blockade.
Second, it is clear that the motivation for the blockade is not primarily out of racial animosity for the Palestinians, although that may play some part. The evidence for this is that the West Bank, controlled by the moderate Fatah faction, is not under any similar restrictions.
Third, it is not clear, and likely will not become clear for the foreseeable future, who started the fighting on the Mavi Mamara. Eyewitness accounts are conflicting. Note that who started the fighting also has zero connection to whether or not the blockade is morally or legally justifiable.
Fourth, Hamas is refusing to accept the flotilla aid until demands are met. If one believes that this aid is vital, then this is a clear example of Hamas willing to let the people of Gaza suffer to suit its own political aims. However, it is important to keep in mind that this despicable behavior by Hamas is also not relevant to whether the blockade is morally or legally justifiable.
In any event, my father's piece makes a pretty strong argument, so go and read.
How AI Systems Fail the Human Test
18 hours ago
13 comments:
The problem I think is that construction materials have military applications.
In what way are the videos unclear in who stared the fighting? Before the first Israeli got on the ship they were already attacking him, no?
E-Man, there's video footage that appears to show preparation for combat. But we don't actually know what time that was from. And preparing for the eventuality of combat is not the same thing as combat. It is suggestive but not definite evidence.
Please watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NnSFrp4tM
It shows Israelis landing on the boat deck and being immediately attacked before they even get their two feet on the deck.
Yes, and we don't know if that video was shot before there were any Israeli troops on board. This is precisely the sort of thing that a detailed investigation that has access to time-stamps and the like will resolve.
Ok, I just don;t know why all those people would be lining up to beat the Israelis descending from the helicopter if there were other Israelis on board. In the video you can see the long line of people waiting to attack the Israelis.
E-Man, the Mavi Mamara is about 300 feet long. If fighting was going on on section, you could easily have people then see other Israelies rappeling down elsewhere and respond as they did with a mob mentality. At this point, I consider it most probable that the violence was started by the people on the ship, but I would not assign a high certainty to that claim.
The last sentence of the article strikes me as a non sequitur: I do agree that Isreal was justified in intercepting the flotilla, but why does it follow that this interception needs to involve deadly force, and that the flotilla's organizers are responsible for any ensuing violence?
Had the commandos stuck to strictly nonlethal means of securing the vessel (e.g. rubber bullets, tear gas), a) there would have been no pistols for the activists to steal, and b) Israel's position on the moral high ground would have been much more clear-cut.
"At this point, I consider it most probable that the violence was started by the people on the ship"
Let us not forget that the boarding of the ship can be described as an act of violence in itself, similarily to how we call robbery a crime of violence.
@ Etienne Vouga
Certainly in hindsight the Israelis would have been better served by using non-lethal force, the problem is that military groups are rarely trained to use non-lethal force. In the U.S. this is the difference between using the coast guard or the navy. If you drop navy seals on a boat you shouldn't be surprised if they respond violently, but send in the coast guard and you can expect them to act more like police. Honestly Israel should have expected a 'suicide by police' type attack.
"In the first eye-witness account of what took place on the Turkish registered Mavi Marmara ship, Israeli MP Haneen Zoabi denies the Israeli assertion that the naval commando forces only began firing in self-defense after one of the activists on board disarmed an Israeli commando and fired upon him with his own weapon. The Israeli MP claimed that the Israeli forces began firing on the ship even before its commandos had landed on the deck of the Mavi Marmara, and that the activists were the ones who were acting in self-defense."
http://www.aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=1&id=21163
In related news:
http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16258
Here is an interview with Norman Finkelstein on the matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9YT73MW3OM
Post a Comment