I've waited until now to write anything about the issue of the botched Israeli attempt to board the activists' boat going to Gaza because I've been very busy and out of town, and, I wanted to let things "play out" a little in the media before commenting. Even though this blog is somewhat in retirement for the moment, I still try to keep to the spirit of it by only posting things that you might not be able to get from the mainstream media.
That being said, I watched in amazement, as many of you did, at the whole blundered military operation to take over the activists' ship. I was surprised at the uprising that took place on the ship (keep in mind the Israeli Navy has boarded activists' ships in the past without incident), and I immediately thought, "I bet that's the ship that has the most Turks on it." On the surface, this thought may sound racist or at least an over-generalization, but this thought came to me out of experience with incidents similar to this. First of all, many Muslims (especially those residing in the Middle East or the vicinity) very rightly have a lot of anger toward Israel, and sometimes this anger is expressed in violent ways (in addition, some of the international activists respond out of anger and with some level of violence as well). Secondly, I knew that many of the Turks aboard had not been as thoroughly trained in nonviolent tactics. There is a lesson here for those who would work in solidarity with other peace activists: we need to be able to know and trust those around us and their responses; we need to know that they are just as trained and committed to nonviolence as we are. I've been at many protests where a few more violent people (i.e., rock throwers) have spoiled an entire protest because of their violent acts.
The next thing I thought about the incident was that the activists need to make a decision about future attempts to break the Israeli blockade: Do they want the attempts to be based solely on nonviolent principles, or do they want to claim the right to use violence in self defense? It is completely in keeping and allowed within international law for people to defend themselves when being attacked, and all the more so when those being attacked are in international waters (in this case, Israel's boarding ships is actually piracy). The activists certainly did not go out of their way to hunt down Israeli ships and attack them; regardless of how you spin it, the Israeli Navy is the one who initiated the attack. However, if the activists choose to claim their right to self defense, they need to know that Israel will not continue to treat them the same ways as Israel has in the past--the activists will then be seen as a paramilitary force, or terrorists, guerrillas, etc. The activists cannot have it both ways (being nonviolent and claiming the right to self defense), and they must choose which way they will go. Being unclear about this will tempt Israel to automatically place them into the more violent camp.
Finally, a lot of time has been wasted in the US media trying to figure out who initiated the "first acts of violence" in this incident. Focusing on this question reveals the US bias, because it is completely obvious how one-sided the "fight" was. Nine people are dead and many more wounded, and all of the dead are activists, not Israelis. If this does not show the balance of power, I don't know what does. It doesn't matter who started it, the Navy has no right to fire and kill people when no lethal force has been used on them. It is obvious that the Navy overreacted, regardless of who threw the first punch. Of course, the other side to this question shows another bias--that the US believes it's ok to preemptively strike and ignore and trample on international laws (since the US does this, we also support Israel in doing it). Simply the fact of boarding a ship in international waters is an act of aggression, so the fact that Israel did this BEFORE the activists responded shows who started it. And, this all boils down to the other fact that Israel is patrolling another countries border and instituting a siege, which is an act of war.
As I have stated over and over, I don't support any of this violence, and that's the reason why I choose not to associate myself with activists who will tolerate or try to justify a violent response of self defense. The tragedy of the people who were killed is bringing the spotlight on Israel, however, and this may bring some changes. One change that has already happened is that Egypt has re-opened its border with Gaza, and this is a start (though it does not end the blockade since Egypt's crossings are limited in the amount of aid that can enter--the crossings are mostly for people and not large semi-trucks, etc.). Egypt's response is welcome and very late, as there is no way Israel's blockade of Gaza can continue without Egypt's cooperation (ironically enough, it's not just Israel that's to blame for this misery). Now it's time to revisit the issue of Israel patrolling Gaza's waters. If Israel wants to keep it's land border's with Gaza closed, that Israel's decision, but it is not lawful for Israel to patrol Gaza's sea borders.
This incident in international waters gives the US and the rest of the world another chance to pressure Israel on its violations of international law. Let's hope that the Obama administration will not just apply a little pressure when all this is in the media, but that they will actually increase the pressure for a just resolution to all of this, regardless of whether the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is making the news.
More Info
