In response to this disastrous incident at sea involving the Israeli military and the Free Gaza Movement, Roger Ebert, the movie critic and prolific liberal tweeter, wrote this morning: “Why isn’t Israel firing on a humanitarian aid ship worse than North Korea firing on a warship?”
This was quickly retweeted by Jeremy Scahill, who appended the word “Exactly.” Scahill, to remind you, is an apologist for Somali pirates, or “pirates” as he refers to them. In other words, Scahill in some instances has no problem with heavily armed people waging violence against civilian ships. Just saying. It seems clear that Israel handled this recklessly and its conduct should be investigated. Let me also state that Israel has pursued an immoral and counterproductive policy in Gaza for some time, and should rethink its blockade (which, to be clear, was instituted in response to Hamas aggression).
However, from video evidence here and here, it also seems clear that some of the Free Gaza Movement activists on that ship attempted to engage Israeli soldiers in hand-to-hand combat. At this stage it is rash to describe this as a simple matter of Israel wantonly killing civilians. But of course that’s what many people want to believe.
Why is this incident unlike the Korean one? Because the Free Gaza ship was warned repeatedly to desist and change course, and then it was boarded — not fired upon, not sank. The North Korean regime sank a sitting-duck South Korean warship with premeditation and without a word of warning, apparently in order bolster the prestige and power of Kim Jong Il in a succession struggle. North Korea is a totalitarian state; Israel is a (deeply flawed) democracy.
What Ebert’s formulation says, sotto voce, is that the actions of totalitarian states shouldn’t bother us that much.
One Comment
Well said, David, though I would take issue with a couple of your points, namely: "It seems clear that Israel handled this recklessly and its conduct should be investigated. Let me also state that Israel has pursued an immoral and counterproductive policy in Gaza for some time, and should rethink its blockade (which, to be clear, was instituted in response to Hamas aggression)." I'm not sure on what basis you conclude that Israel handled this recklessly. Perhaps after the incident is investigated that may turn out to be true, but I am not sure on what factual basis you make this claim prior to an investigation – especially given the mitigating factors you yourself outline. As for Israel's blockade (a blockade supported by the US and the EU), given that you agree that it is in response to Hamas aggression (against Israeli civilians, btw) simply to claim that it is immoral and counterproductive does not make it so. If you suggested an alternative policy that the Israelis could pursue that would result in less hardship to the Palestinian population your case for Israeli immorality would have a foundation. Otherwise, Israel's right to self-defense would prevail.