Since Glenn Greenwald is showing up on MSNBC and elsewhere, as an “expert” on Israel and Gaza, this is as good a time as any to recall his record with regard to the last major Hamas-Israel blowup, the Gaza incursion in 2008-09.
Greenwald consistently accused Israel of a “disproportionate” (and therefore illegal under international law) military response to the missile attacks from Gaza, but he refused to specify what he would consider a proportionate military response. He finally justified that refusal by claiming that since the military response was not going to work, only diplomatic means were lawful:
I’ve answered this repeatedly. Do you know of anyone who actually believes that at the end of this Israeli attack, there will be no more Hamas, or no more rockets? The only military solution to the rocket attacks is total annihilation of the residents of Gaza and a complete flattening of their cities. If Israel were to do that, what possible objections would those here be able to make who are arguing that “proportionality” has no role to play in restricting the means used to fight justifiable wars? Terrorism ends when the causes of it are addressed, typically via diplomatic means. That’s what history proves. [Editor's note: But cf. Israel's successful counter-terrorism operations in the West Bank in the 2000s, among other examples.]
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. Greenwald, also accuses Israel of piracy [UPDATE: More specifically, he writes, perserving I suppose plausible deniability: "What's so odd about that is that the U.S. has been spending a fair amount of time recently condemning exactly such acts as 'piracy' and demanding 'that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes'," though he doesn't actually link to anything suggesting that the U.S. has said that a state enforcing a blockade on the high seas is "piracy"], even though piracy is by definition undertaken by non-state actors; and (b) accuses everyone who disagrees with him about Israel’s blockade of simply regurgitating propaganda, which is amusing coming from someone who unhesitatingly repeated the following false propaganda from the “Free Gaza” activists: “Those on the ships emphatically state that the IDF came on board shooting.” (He later added a “but see” (without acknowledging that it wasn’t there initially), linking to video that rebuts the claim he regurgitated.) And this from someone who constantly accuses journalists he doesn’t like of being “mindless stenographers.”
UPDATE: Greenwald updates: “for an excellent discussion of the illegality of the Israeli raid, see this analysis from former British Ambassador and maritime law expert Craig Murray, and this one from International Law Professor Kevin Jon Heller (the Post has a decent article on this topic today as well).”
The first piece simply asserts that the raid was illegal. Heller, meanwhile, argues that the blockade itself is illegal, but seems to acknowledge that if the blockade is legal, the raid is legal. The Post piece presents different perspectives, but the “illegality” argument seems come down to the bizarre position that a state can board ships heading to another recognized state to enforce a blockade, but it can’t board ships heading to a terrorist entity that acts as a state to enforce a blockade.
DangerMouse says:
Why anyone takes that sockpuppet seriously I cannot imagine…
June 2, 2010, 11:25 amPubliusFL says:
Greenwald seems to be wrong about enforcing blockades in international waters, but if “piracy is by definition undertaken by non-state actors,” what are we to make of the infamous Barbary pirates, and the tribute payments made to and wars fought with the Barbary States? I’m not saying he’s right about Israel being guilty of piracy, but is he really wrong for the reason that a state can never be held responsible for piratical acts?
June 2, 2010, 11:35 amJoe T. Guest says:
>>>Why anyone takes that sockpuppet seriously I cannot imagine…
Because it serves partisan purposes to do so from time to time.
June 2, 2010, 11:41 amOther Person says:
David, can you provide a link to the Ruth Wedgwood quote that you cite?
June 2, 2010, 11:42 amDavid Bernstein says:
I’m happy to be corrected on this if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that the following from Wikipedia is correct: Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, rape, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft.
June 2, 2010, 11:44 amDavid Bernstein says:
Other, if you look at this version of the Greenwald MSNBC appearance, the third video in the link, Wedgwood comes on at the end.
June 2, 2010, 11:46 amPetep says:
The whole thing was planned as a morality play writ large from the beginning, an international publicity gimmick. They wanted an international incident, they planned one carefully, and they got it. Now they are playing it to the hilt. Greenwald is merely a predictable conduit of their planned media campaign.
The supposedly ‘law abiding’ blockade-breakers have decided that they are entitled to ignore all laws, all borders, all decisions made by countries such as Israel about their own national policy and self-defense, and substitute their own little rag-tag bunch of wanna-be do-gooders as ‘the ultimate authorities, who can do anything they want’.
They think this represents ‘respect for peace and law and diplomacy’ ??? No, it represents anarchy, by any definition. And like all anarchists, they have decided to declare themselves ‘in charge of everything’, the new self-appointed dictators of the world.
BTW, what Israel actually said at the beginning was “We will help you land at our port, and after we inspect the cargo for weapons, we will will load it on our trucks while you watch ( for free ) and deliver it to Gaza for you, under your observation. No charge.” The anarchists of course weren’t happy with that, as they wake up in the morning determined not to be happy with anything no matter what.
June 2, 2010, 11:47 amUgh says:
The blockade itself or Israel’s actions on Monday?
June 2, 2010, 11:49 amBarb says:
Palestinian Muslims want all of Israel to be free of Jews. No diplomatic efforts will satisfy. We think that everyone in the world is reasonable –that there are ‘win-win’ situations if you just talk long enough –but old grievances and desire for “eye for an eye” justice will continue to blind people.
June 2, 2010, 11:51 amreality check says:
The “Barbary States” was a term used to describe the region of North Africa from which the pirates originated. The territory was part of the Ottoman Empire (the actual “state” in question.) Note that we did not take action against the Ottomans, but instead against non-state tribal chieftians and gangs that ran piracy operations from Ottoman territory.
If you consider those minor fiefdoms “states,” then the proper term for thier actions would be “raiding” or “privateering.” Piracy refers to non-state actors.
June 2, 2010, 11:53 amAnonsters says:
Greenwald is a useful voice when it comes to civil liberties, and he’s often useful when it comes to other progressive domestic policies. I’m happy to concede that he should stick to those topics.
Also, I know it’s totally and completely off-topic and will probably be Eliminated post haste, but I just wanted to make sure to flag this story for the libertarians who, on previous threads, argued that private discrimination just wouldn’t happen today.
June 2, 2010, 11:57 amBama 1L says:
Does UNCLOS wholly displace customary international law on this topic? I would be very wary of that argument. It is contested and I don’t think the United States has taken this position.
Obligatory statement about the United States not having ratified UNCLOS, why are you citing “international law,” etc.
The usage of the International Maritime Bureau restricts “piracy” to acts with a non-political end. So an act by private parties with a political goal (e.g., terrorism, even stealing cargo for the use of rebels) is never piracy for most purposes of private international law (freight, insurance, etc.). Neither Israel nor the “peace activists” (nor the Achille Lauro hijackers, nor any Somali coasters who were sufficiently politically motivated) could ever be pirates under this analysis. As you might guess, insurers really like this definition, since it excludes a large category of risks. (You normally insure against “piracy” but not against “war risk.”)
June 2, 2010, 12:03 pmMark F. says:
but I just wanted to make sure to flag this story for the libertarians who, on previous threads, argued that private discrimination just wouldn’t happen today.
Any libertarian who argues that is an idiot. However, I’m not going to abandon principles because things happen I don’t like. I’m not a utilitarian who thinks the end justifies the means.
June 2, 2010, 12:05 pmJordan Cartilla says:
Whatever one thinks of Greenwald’s opinion here, his work for the CATO Institute on Portugal’s regime of what comes close to outright legalization was first rate.
June 2, 2010, 12:06 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Well, it can’t be that the likes of Greenwald get to cite international law when it supports their position, but to ignore it when it’s contrary to their position.
June 2, 2010, 12:11 pmafmcclint says:
I don’t know why, but I’m still amazed every time I read a comment like this.
June 2, 2010, 12:14 pmBama 1L says:
Yes, but there’s an argument as to what international law is, and citing a positive enactment doesn’t end the inquiry. There are further bodies of international law, possibly enough for everyone to be right.
That said, I think the argument that Israel committed what is legally defined as piracy is pretty weak. But there is a long rhetorical tradition of decrying certain state actions as piracy in spite of the defintion. We got into WWI over Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare, which was called “piracy” by the likes of Nobel Peace Prize winner Teddy Roosevelt. So why, Professor Bernstein, are you holding Greenwald to the legal standard when he may have just been using the common rhetoric whereby anyone who marauds or hijacks at see may be called a pirate?
Would you like state-directed or politically-motivated hijackers of aircraft and sea vessels to be treated as pirates or not?
June 2, 2010, 12:23 pm1040 says:
i know. how cynical of the israeli army to pretend to be innocent just because they had paintballs (which none of the people on the boat knew about), and how nasty of them to provoke the people to defend themselves against armed train soldiers rappelling into their boat from helicopters! there must be a word for playing the victim card for israel here. chutzpah, was it?
June 2, 2010, 12:29 pmJohn Emerson says:
Greenwald doesn’t claim to be an “expert”. That was your own little sneer. He represents a point of view.
Nice of you guys to exonerate the Barbary pirates, though. Lawyers have a way of confusing the issue — what a clownish exchange. (OK, privateers! I surrender!)
Israel did not promise to forward everything but weapons. They promised to forward everything that wasn’t embargoed. Stuff like cement is embargoes.
June 2, 2010, 12:30 pmMearson says:
…Greenwald seems the only American MSM pundit to strongly oppose the Israeli flotilla actions — so why is he so vigorously denigrated here ?
Hardly worth the effort on such a minor, lone pundit who is so ‘obviously’ wrong {??}
Unless, of course, he is correct… then the put-down effort makes total sense to partisans.
June 2, 2010, 12:32 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Put aside int’l law. As my update makes clear, Greenwald is claiming that the U.S. has condemned acts similar to Israel’s as “piracy.” I don’t know of any other blockades going on currently, but I’d like to see where the U.S. has accused a nation’s military forces enforcing a blockade of “piracy.”
June 2, 2010, 12:32 pmAaron says:
FWIW, Neither Israel nor Turkey have signed it, either.
June 2, 2010, 12:33 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#Signature_and_ratification
reality check says:
Couldn’t we just treat them as hijackers?
June 2, 2010, 12:33 pmDavid Bernstein says:
And, btw, I wasn’t saying UNCLOS was definitive, I was just saying that the definition provided there of piracy seems to be the accepted one, i.e., that it involves private actors.
June 2, 2010, 12:36 pmafmcclint says:
Um, I think the publicity-seekers the OC was referring to were the people aboard the flotilla.
June 2, 2010, 12:36 pmgeokstr says:
IANAL, so can one please explain for me how Israel’s actions on the blockade could be called “piracy”? Prior to this fiasco, they had stopped many ships. After inspection of the cargo for weapons, they either let them continue or escorted them to Israeli ports and shipped the goods to their intended destinations.
To be classified as piracy, wouldn’t the “pirates” have to do something more, like steal the goods, or sink the ship, or murder or rape the crew, or something more than approve the goods as safe? Or is Israel held to a higher standard, where anything short of agreeing to national suicide is considered a crime?
June 2, 2010, 12:36 pmTNeloms says:
I’m curious if anyone has links to these commentators, because it’s extremely rare to see someone on The Internet admit that they’re wrong, especially about significant issues.
June 2, 2010, 12:39 pmChristopher Cooke says:
I think Greenwald is letting his biases overwhelm his analysis.
By the way, the more I read, the more I am convinced that the flotilla was an example of how perhaps well-meaning, American and European leftists/peace activitists, who thought they were on a humanitarian mission, were being used by much more militant, violent activists who wanted to provoke Israel to achieve a major propaganda victory on behalf of Hamas. The ties of I.H.H. — the Turkish charity that financially supported the flotilla–to hardline islamist groups, for example, were probably not known to former Ambassador Peck (who I saw interviewed on Fox).
June 2, 2010, 12:40 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Can’t find the link, but there was a piece in the Washington Post by one of their columnists last year, that in turn linked to others.
June 2, 2010, 12:40 pmJohn Emerson says:
I like the part about the poor helpless unarmed Israeli commandos being forced to defend themselves and somehow managing to kill 10-20 people without weapons.
June 2, 2010, 12:41 pmyou would know says:
“More specifically, he writes, perserving I suppose plausible deniability:”
Speaking of cowardly writers who want to push a certain point of view but don’t have the balls to be explicit:
Mr. Bernstein: Do you believe it should be legal for a private restaurant owner to exclude potential customers because the potential customers are black?
June 2, 2010, 12:43 pmautist says:
They had paintballs? Aren’t those outlawed under the UN Convention against Toy Weapons? How dare those Israeli commandos attack peace activists with painful paintballs, and not even warn them in advance! No wonder the peace activists beat them into unconsciousness and threw them off the boat. Nothing riles up a peace activist like being hit with a paintball!
June 2, 2010, 12:44 pm1040 says:
um, that was the point of my comment.
June 2, 2010, 12:44 pmInstapundit » Blog Archive » USEFUL IDIOT: Greenwald and Gaza. “Since Glenn Greenwald is showing up on MSNBC and elsewhere, as … says:
[...] IDIOT: Greenwald and Gaza. “Since Glenn Greenwald is showing up on MSNBC and elsewhere, as an ‘expert’ on [...]
June 2, 2010, 12:45 pm1040 says:
it is also impressive how well trained the commandos were that they managed to murder around 10 of the passengers. and how shameful of the activists to try and defend themselves! it must prove they were evil. they got what was coming to them. just like those palestinians affected in the blockade of weapon materials like :
sage – cardamom – cumin – coriander – ginger – jam – halva – vinegar – nutmeg – chocolate – fruit preserves – seeds and nuts – biscuits – potato chips – dried fruit – fresh meat -
plaster – tar – wood for construction – cement – iron – glucose – industrial salt – plastic/glass/metal containers – industrial margarine – tarpaulin sheets for huts – fabric (for clothing) – flavor and smell enhancers – fishing rods shampoo – various fishing nets soap – buoys – ropes for fishing – nylon nets for greenhouses – hatcheries and spare parts for hatcheries – spare parts for tractors – dairies for cowsheds – irrigation pipe – ropes to tie greenhouses – planters for saplings – heaters for chicken farms – musical instruments -
size A4 paper – writing implements – notebooks – newspapers – toys – razors – sewing machines – heaters all canned food – horses – donkeys – goats – cattle – chicks
i am sure there is only a military intent to the blockade, and no civilians are affected in the least. how about cutting some olive trees on generational farm land because people protested settlers abetted by the state, while israel is at it?
June 2, 2010, 12:48 pmLitigator London says:
As it happens, I consider Glenn Greenwald to be right in his characterisation of the Israeli response to the rocket attacks as “disproportionate” and therefore unlawful as a matter of international law. While both he and incidentally some of the Turkish leaders are technically wrong to describe the Israeli acts on boarding the vessels as “piracy” for the reason that by definition state actors cannot be a pirates, on the other hand I do not consider either the blockade itself or the manner of boarding the vessels to have been lawful.
Legalities aside, I believe both the blockade and the armed intervention to have been “own goals” of the first magnitude. In support, of that proposition I refer firstly to Prime Minister’s Questions in the House of Commons today. Our Prime Minister condemned the Israeli actions as “completely unacceptable”. He went on to say “Friends of Israel – and I count myself a friend of Israel – should be saying to the Israelis that the blockade actually strengthens Hamas’s grip on the economy and on Gaza. And it’s in their own interests to lift it and allow these vital supplies to get through.” He added: “We should do everything we can through the UN, where resolution 1860 is absolutely clear about the need to end the blockade and to open up Gaza.” Secondly, in the Turkish Parliament today, the outrage was such that a Parliamentary motion was actually more strongly worded than the ruling AKP party had wished.
I am beginning to wonder if the principal problem is not the military strength of Israel but the weakness of the Israeli pure PR electoral system which has resulted in the present “coalition of the weirdos” government which is taking decisions not out of strength but out of weakness.
June 2, 2010, 12:54 pmmamiejane says:
Every legitimate media outlet is reporting that there is insufficient information to determine who initiated the violence on board the ship. The Israeli tape is incomplete. The tape sent forth by the flotilla supporters is also incomplete. Israel has been refusing to let the media interview witnesses. Yet David Bernstein knows that the Israeli army was acting in self-defense when it killed nine civilians. I’m so glad to know we have an all-knowing blogger who doesn’t need facts to decide guilt.
June 2, 2010, 12:55 pmautist says:
Right, how dare those highly-trained, paintball-armed Israeli commandos use their sidearms to prevent themselves from being beaten to death! That violates the UN Convention Against Self-Defense. Where’s the ICC when you need it? All those Zionists should be tried for war crimes and violating international law.
June 2, 2010, 12:56 pmTNeloms says:
I know that this isn’t directly relevant to the legal matters of what happened on the flotilla, but this seems to fly in the face of the narrative that the Israelis are trying to prevent aid from reaching the Palestinians:
June 2, 2010, 12:57 pmJohn Emerson says:
We haven’t heard much of anything but what the Israelis want us to hear yet. When did the shooting start?
I don’t get the point of the paintball story at all. Were the commandos lured into an innocent simulation game and then treacherously attacked? They did manage to kill 10-20 people….with their paintball guns? The people on the boats had evidently brought no weapons and are being accused of picking up sticks to attack commandos with automatic weapons, and we’r supposed to be angry at them?
June 2, 2010, 12:58 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Indeed, but “Barbary Pirates” was a catchier phrase to sell to Congress.
No, but CIL and the practice of centuries ratifies the Israeli position. Blockade runners can and have been seized anywhere they are (an, in fact, condemned).
June 2, 2010, 1:01 pm1040 says:
Prof. Bernstein, could you explain why my comment was deleted? What was out of bounds in the comment?
June 2, 2010, 1:02 pmJohn Emerson says:
People right here on this very thread are portraying the commandos as helpless, unarmed victims attacked by surprise and defending themselves the only way they knew how. Come on. Run things through a plausibility screen before posting.
June 2, 2010, 1:02 pmnoahp says:
I am standing with the next Speaker of the House, Sarah Palin, who urged US solidarity with Israel.
You heard it here first. Rumor contingent on R’s winning control in November.
(I can see progressive heads exploding in January from my front porch).
June 2, 2010, 1:02 pmDavid Bernstein says:
So I’ll present you the same challenge I presented at the time, which not a single critic was willing to answer: what, in your view, would be a “proportionate” military response by Israel to rockets sent into its territory by Hamas? Greenwald was ultimately honest enough to admit that he didn’t think ANY military response was “proportionate”, an idea that makes a mockery of the concept of proportionality–any yahoo could declare “I don’t think this country’s military action is going to work, so I declare that any civilian casualties make the action disproportionate.”
June 2, 2010, 1:03 pmnibbles says:
And the US blockaded Tripoli in 1803-1804, capturing many ships in the process. There was no declaration of war, but I doubt Preble, Decatur or Jefferson were troubled by the many deaths of blockade runners. Nor were there any claims that the US itself was engaging in piracy through its enforcement of the blockade.
June 2, 2010, 1:05 pm1040 says:
heh. armed commandos rappeling down from helicopters, and it is the unarmed folks who tried to defend themselves with sticks and rods that should be blamed for the killings. chutzpah sounds about right to me.
June 2, 2010, 1:05 pmOrenWithAnE says:
I, for one, am not angry at them in the slightest.
June 2, 2010, 1:06 pmIsrael/Palestine and Greenwald/Bernstein « La Flog says:
[...] believes that Greenwald is wrong and that Palestine (specifically Hamas) is at [...]
June 2, 2010, 1:06 pm1040 says:
I requested deletion of my question after I posted it; my misunderstanding was a consequence of my browser acting up.
June 2, 2010, 1:06 pmCrunchy Frog says:
If the idiots that run Hamasistan had the good sense that God gave a turnip, they would be able to manufacture/grow all of those things themselves, and would have no need for “humanitarian aid”. Of course that might require them to shift their priorities away from ridding the Middle East of the Jooos, and towards taking care of their own people. In other words, never.
ps. swing a pipe at my head, and you’ll be leaving the scene in a body bag as well.
June 2, 2010, 1:07 pm1040 says:
thanks for the threat. the rest of your comment has about the same level of coherence and civility, and is not worthy of being dignified with a response – especially your belief that all economies that rely on imports are dumb.
June 2, 2010, 1:10 pmBored Lawyer says:
If this is really Greenwald’s position, then he is either a complete fool or an anti-semite. Acc. to this, the “international law of proportionality” means that unless you can guarantee a complete cessation of terrorism, you are forbidden from taking any military action against the terrorists, all you can do is negotiate.
Does anyone take this position seriously? Are the U.S. (and other countries) military actions in, say, Afghanistan, illegal, because we cannot guarantee complete cessation of all Al-Qaeda terrorism? Is the only choice to invite Osama bin Laden to diplomatic negotiations? Are former President Bush and President Obama war criminals?
Anyone care to defend Greenwald on this inanity?
June 2, 2010, 1:13 pmTNeloms says:
Is this it: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1862800391.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+21%2C+2009&author=Jackson+Diehl&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=A.19&desc=Israel%27s+Gaza+Vindication
I can’t tell if it is because I don’t have subscriber access. Does anyone else have access, or know which article it is (or have links to the commentators who reversed their positions)?
June 2, 2010, 1:13 pmLugo says:
There is an excellent discussion of the misuse of “proportionality” in warfare here. As the author notes, claims of “disproportionality” reflect a lack of moral seriousness as well as anti-Israeli sentiment.
June 2, 2010, 1:15 pmrichard says:
It seems to me that much of this debate is simply nonsense, devoid of much facts and based on the participant’s biases against or in favor of Israel or the Palestinians. We simply don’t have the facts yet, all we have is the Israeli story and the activist story. Important questions I haven’t heard addressed yet
1. Were the people who died shot with automatic weapons and, if so, were they fired by the first wave of descending commandos or a later group?
2. Did the first wave of commandoes fire paintball guns as they descended. As a former paintball afficionado, I know that paintballs are very capable of taking out a person’s eye. Did any of the first wave of commandoes fire their hand guns as they descended?
3. Were fire bombs or other incendiary weapons used by the people on the ship and, if so, where did they get them?
4.Who were killed and where were they killed? Were they the people engaged in beating the commandoes (and throwing them onto the lower bridge) or were some of the people shot not engaged in that violence and trying to evade the Israeli troops? Did Israeil troops track down the people on the ship and use automatic weapons against them?
Without answers to these questions, I don’t see how anyone, Greenwald or Bernstein, can come to any conclusions at this time.
June 2, 2010, 1:16 pmnoahp says:
Automatic weapons? Sidearms and paintball weapons.
Obviously the Israelis were confused. If their critics are correct about their intentions going in they would have cleared the boat decks with automatic fire before rapelling down.
June 2, 2010, 1:16 pmBored Lawyer says:
BTW for those speculating about what the commandoes did or did not expect, how about discussing the issue of raising the white flag? That is supposed to mean peaceful surrender. If you raise the white flag and then physically attack the forces who are boarding your vessel you are engaged in a war crime — perfidy.
Not to mention that the other five ships were peaceably boarded without incident.
So if a flotilla of six ships raises the white flag, and five ships are boarded peacefully, perhaps it is understandable that the boarding forces expected the sixth ship to do likewise.
June 2, 2010, 1:19 pmyankev says:
Three guesses why.
June 2, 2010, 1:20 pmDave Johnson says:
They had sidearms moron. If you’ve ever been hit in the head with an 3 foot iron pipe you wouldn’t be saying this so snarkily.
June 2, 2010, 1:20 pmMark Buehner says:
If their critics were right a diesel submarine would have silently dispatched all 6 vessels and that would have been the end of it.
June 2, 2010, 1:21 pmJohn Emerson says:
For his own sake I hope crunchy frog is better at self-defense than at argument. Like any ideology and any state, Zionism needs its Igors, but they should be kept in their cages during negotiations of any kind.
June 2, 2010, 1:21 pmyankev says:
Simple — if no one rebutted him, simpletons and partisans would take mistakennly that as an admission that Greenwald is correct.
But you already knew that.
June 2, 2010, 1:22 pm1040 says:
yes, because only the activists are capable of plausible deniability and provocation/goading till breaking point and then feigning shock and dismay at the response.
June 2, 2010, 1:25 pmJohn Emerson says:
Fine, Dave, the commandos weren’t unarmed, and the people on the boat were.
Moron.
June 2, 2010, 1:25 pmyankev says:
Because it was done by Israel and not by some other country.
June 2, 2010, 1:25 pmyankev says:
Have you stopped beating your spouse, significant other or same sex partner yet?
June 2, 2010, 1:27 pmDave Johnson says:
Again moron, let someone hit you with a 3ft metal pipe and then I want you to tell me they were “unarmed”. These people were savages through and through and the ten of them got what was coming to them – a free visit to Allah.
June 2, 2010, 1:27 pmJohn Emerson says:
Dream on, Mark B. And hopefully the entire Arab world will be nuked someday too.
June 2, 2010, 1:27 pmFinbar says:
War is not police work. When someone seeks your extinction, explicitly, in the way Hamas and Islamists seek to do with Israel and the United States, you are not obligated to respond “proportionately.” If amurderer seeks to take your life by attacking you with a pipe, or a knife, you do not have to reply in kind, which concedes to that person an advantage. You shoot them… dead, preferably. The West’s self restraint against Islamists is a weakness exploited by those who have no self restraint, who aim for massive civilian casualties.
June 2, 2010, 1:28 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Here’s the Diehl piece acknowledging he was wrong. Doesn’t seem to cite anyone else, but I remember reading a couple of others with the same view around the same time.
June 2, 2010, 1:29 pm1040 says:
finally. the acceptable form of anti-semitism on the thread manifests.
June 2, 2010, 1:31 pmEH says:
Looks like Bernstein has found his punching bag. I figured his pithy participation in his threads, offering only snark or that shameful “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” offtopic derailment suggestion yesterday (second comment in his own post!) the last couple of days was due to the shock of reality. If Greenwald is so bad, how about a little discussion of Krauthammer’s various recent appearances? I figure they’re both about equal in their expertise on this topic, and Charles sure does get around. Then again, maybe Bernstein will tell us the only bad propaganda is that which you don’t agree.
He still has said nothing on the matter at hand.
June 2, 2010, 1:31 pmMoneyrunner says:
1040:
Is it your contention that you can’t kill someone with a lead pipe? For some reason, a certain kind of person is totally unable – or unwilling – to admit that it’s perfectly possible to kill people with either old fashioned or unconventional weapons. To be consistent, they will tell you that the people who killed 3000 of us on 9/11 were unarmed. After all, box cutters and airplanes are not guns and therefore we were killed by unarmed protestors, or perhaps they were “peace activists.”
In fact, using the 1040 definition of “arms” before the invention of gunpowder, literally millions of people were killed by unarmed armies.
June 2, 2010, 1:32 pmJKB says:
Please explain where Israel robbed anyone?
And as blockade is a sovereign right, why they did not have lawful authority to enforce the blockade?
Historically, “The sailing for a blockaded port, knowing it to be blockaded, is, it seems, such an act as may charge the party with a breach of the blockade. 5 Cranch, 335 9 Cranch, 440, 446; 1 Kent, Com. 150. When the ship has contracted guilt by a breach of the blockade, she may be taken at any time before the end of her voyage, but the penalty travels no further than the end of her return voyage. 2 Rob. R. 128; 3 Rob. R. 147.”, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856).
June 2, 2010, 1:32 pm1040 says:
you are not. but don’t ask for morality or sympathy for your actions. acknowledge that you are in the gutter, and that your actions have the same or worse moral valence than your adversaries.
June 2, 2010, 1:33 pmq says:
Context is important. The paintball guns are an indication that the Israelis had no intention of engaging in violence and expected little violent resistance, at least little enough such that paintball guns would be enough to subdue. The Israelis also announced their intention of commandeering the ships for non-violent purposes. Finally, the vast majority of passengers understood the Israelis’ intentions, as 5 of the 6 flotillas surrendered peacefully and made their way to Ashdod for inspection, and something like 90-95% of the 6th flotilla’s passengers did not join the resistors.
It doesn’t prove the resistors were evil, but a lot of this does show that the Israelis weren’t evil either (the latter being a more common accusation). Incompetent, yes, but once they encountered much more violence than anticipated given their announced intentions, exactly what would you have them do to diffuse the situation? The Israeli response seems more reasonable than the response of a tiny minority of passengers.
June 2, 2010, 1:33 pmJohn Emerson says:
I don’t know what the rules of engagement are at VC for the visiting team, so I think I’ll stop responding to Mr. Johnson and Crunchy Frog. I have the feeling that theyg are pretty useless to anyone except when people need to be bashed with pipes and so on. Glad they’re your friends and not mine.
I have to admit that I have not thought of cement as a weapon before, but I guess I’m dumb.
June 2, 2010, 1:34 pmCrunchy Frog says:
As I don’t expect you to initiate violence upon my person (especially using deadly force), I wouldn’t lose sleep about it.
I wasn’t referring to “all economies”. I was talking about Gaza, and the quasi-government inhabiting it – the same folks who, instead of building their economy using the resources at hand, choose to use those resources in an attempt to kill their neighbors to the west. They then have the audacity to complain when those neighbors, instead of reciprocating in kind, simply deny them resupply of weapons and dual-use materiel.
June 2, 2010, 1:34 pm1040 says:
what kind of person would that be? don’t be coy.
would you try and defend yourself against armed commandos rappelling down from helicopters? would the fact that 10 activists died against no israeli commandos say anything about the level of armedness and preparedness to kill between the two sides?
June 2, 2010, 1:35 pmKenneth Brooks says:
I believe a line from Black Hawk Down is appropriate here: “When the first bullet goes by your head, politics and all that other bull$hit goes right out the window.” We now have Turkey’s minister stating the Turkey will go to war against Israel. What is legal and illegal will quickly become moot if Turkey holds true to its threat. If war with Turkey comes to pass the geopolitical entity of Israel will continue to exist; however, it will become a pawn of the quickly ascending triumvirate on the Middle East: Turkey, Iran and Syria.
June 2, 2010, 1:36 pmMark Buehner says:
You might note that I wasn’t ‘dreaming’ for such an event- i was pointing out that if the Israeli goal was to hurt or kill protesters, they could do so with no risk to themselves and no direct evidence. Ask North Korea… which didn’t seem to get 10% of the condemnation for their latest atrocity on the high seas.
By the way- i love the excuse that Israel has (for reasons unknown) been stealing the pitiful flow of aid that they have to search before it reaches Gaza. And who tells us that? Hamas of course! How can we not believe them when they say its Israel pointlessly stealing wheel chairs and baby formula, and not the kleptocrats in charge of Gaza?
This is exactly the point- if Israel wanted to starve Gaza, Gaza would starve. You folks siding with Hamas just don’t seem to be able to explain why the usually competent Israel is so bad at killing Palestinians, if that is indeed their goal.
June 2, 2010, 1:37 pmDavid Bernstein says:
It’s worse than that. It’s if Glenn Greenwald doesn’t think whatever military action you take is going to be effective, however he chooses to define effective, than it’s disproportionate.
June 2, 2010, 1:37 pmgk1 says:
Why such the short memory folks. Does anyone remember the Karine A affair?
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/paship.html
There is a blockade precicely because the palestinian’s can not be trusted, plain an simple. That they now set up this psycho drama and have the usual suspects make excuses for them is sadly predictable but hardly surprising. What law abiding country would allow brigands and terrorists to tranship weapons with impunity? Not a surviving one, thats for sure.
June 2, 2010, 1:37 pmDave Johnson says:
How is that anti-semitism? Maybe you can point out to me how calling those that wielded knives and bars in a savage manner should manage to avoid the stain of being called savages? Or was it that I invoked Allah, as they did in their chants a few days earlier praying for a massacre of Jews? There are still a few of us out here who are not afraid of being called names, and we’ll take it to you son.
June 2, 2010, 1:38 pmMark Buehner says:
Would you try to defend yourself if a swat team kicked in your front door by cracking a cop over the head with a lead pipe? Would you be surprised if they were burying you the next day?
June 2, 2010, 1:39 pm1040 says:
as has been mentioned previously on the thread, paintballs can take out eyes and can cause pretty serious damage in crowded scenarios. the fact that the israelis had sidearms which could kill can also be seen as an indication that the automatic fire weapons being non lethal (but still capable of causing very serious harm) gives them the plausible deniability of being peaceful in intent.
June 2, 2010, 1:39 pm1040 says:
umm, you can keep up the fiction of weapons and dual-use, but the list I mentioned in an earlier comment makes it pretty clear what the purpose of the blockage is. Collective punishment of the Gazan populace. Make them starve and suffer to breaking point.
i don’t lose sleep over internet tough guys, so don’t worry about it.
June 2, 2010, 1:41 pmEH says:
Time is moving faster than I thought. Here we are in a day and age when a mere rebuttal is enough to change the minds of people who aren’t inclined to change their minds anyway.
Let me see if I have this right. Simpletons, who probably aren’t watching MSNBC news-interview shows and are presumably defined to be more or less unintelligent, are going to use conflicting sources of information on a TV talking-head show to come to a more-sophisticated sense of the events of the day. Is that so? Has that ever happened before in the history of man? The history of TV? The Internet?
Then you say that rebuttal is the key to winning over partisans, who are presumably people who toe the party line but are strangely weak-of-mind in the presence of TV news show rebuttals. It makes me wonder how anybody maintains a consistent opinion after being barraged with rebuttals day-in and day-out, since they’re so powerful.
June 2, 2010, 1:42 pm1040 says:
congratulations, you can add “internet tough guy” along with “acceptably anti-semite” to your resume.
June 2, 2010, 1:43 pmMark Buehner says:
Let me get this straight- your theory is that Israel prompted an international incident by intercepting a flotilla on the high seas having a commando team repel down from multi-million dollar helicopters in the dark in order to put out the eyes of some protesters with paint-balls?
Thats seriously what you got?
June 2, 2010, 1:43 pm1040 says:
they do. through blockades that severely restrict the supply of basic food stuff and equipment. through destroying basic forms of livelihood by destroying generational farms.
June 2, 2010, 1:44 pmZK says:
There’s now video on YouTube of what looks like stun grenades being thrown over the side of what looks like a ship onto what appears to be a inflatable boat filled with commandos.
If, in fact, these ‘peace activists’ are tossing grenades at the boarding party, what are we supposed to think about this? Has the mainstream media just not caught up?
June 2, 2010, 1:45 pmDave Johnson says:
1040 has to be pulling our leg. No one is this dumb: “paintballs…can cause pretty serious damage”. What a nancy – someone alert the little kids playing paintball in suburbs everywhere!!! How about the fact that the previous 5 ships were peacefully (and I might add legally) boarded? The Israeli’s had every reason to believe the sixth ship would behave the same when legally boarded, thus the paintball guns.
June 2, 2010, 1:46 pmCrunchy Frog says:
FYI – I’m not especially good at self-defense (the hump restricts my agility somewhat). I just fight dirty. Plus, it’s a little hard to negotiate with someone who’s trying to kill you.
Also – can Lutherans be Zionist? I’m a little hazy on the terminology.
June 2, 2010, 1:46 pmMark Buehner says:
So whats the point of knocking around some guys on a boat?
Lets cut to the chase, in your opinion, what was Israel’s objective here?
June 2, 2010, 1:47 pmyankev says:
That is defamatory. Go look upo the definition of murder. These are the “passengers” who armed themselves with daggers before the voyage (that shabiryeh in the one photo definitely did not come from a ship’s galley), ignored every chance they wer given to avoid confrontation, began by throwing one commando to a deck 30 feet below where he sustained serious head injurious, overpowered and disarmed several commandoes, tried to take one or more as hostages, and started to lynch one of them, at which point the commandoes sought and received permission to use live fire. Before it was over, the ‘passengers’ had fired at the IDF, emptying the pistols they had taken from the commandoes. If the commandoes were out to murder people, how remarkable that they only managed to kill 10. For that matter, how remarkable that they would rappel onto the boat exposing themselves to attack as they landed one by one instead of boarding from the sea at greater risk to the passengers but less risk to themselves. And how remarkable they didn’t simply sink the boat instead of boarding, or sink it afterward with all hands to cover up. Fear of bad publicity, you say? But it’s clear by now Israel would get bad publicity no matter how restrained it was in using force.
But you already know these things. You just don’t care.
Okay, if you read the comments that way, it explains a lot about how you can reach some of the other conclusions you reached.
And about the failures of the American education system.
Not if you do it to Israelis. Sheesh.
Or at all, if the blow was hard enough or in the right spot.
June 2, 2010, 1:47 pmAssistant Village Idiot says:
London Litigator gives away two games without realizing it. Talk about own goals. If one already thinks that the blockade is illegal (are any blockades legal, then?), one cannot have a hope of objectivity when discussing its implementation. We can all pretend and sound nice in such circumstances, but the conclusion is preordained. Many of the other commenters seem to have similar root objections which prevent them from participating evenhandedly in this discussion – though they may not be aware. If one has already decided that it is illegal for Israelis to be boarding the ships at all, then of course helicopters and armed IDF will seem so completely beyond the pale that it calls for ridicule, exaggeration, and straw men. If no weapons had even been snuck in by the coast, and there were no ongoing hostilities, then yes, I imagine anything beyond a few customs officers would be disproportionate. Let me illustrate that by neutralising the sympathies. When there were “peace ships” in WWI, I would expect that both sides would send in some military presence on stopping and examining their contents. Just because they say they are peace ships and are mostly filled with One-World loons, does that mean no dangerous people may have wangled their way on?
Similar historical perspective “No, none of us here in this banana republic are communists. We’re all just agrarian reformers.”
Second, appealling to the turning of public opinion as a logical argument is revealing what he might wish he hadn’t: that liberals consider these social aspects as an important persuasive point in matters of legality or morality. Only to some.
As to 1040′s list of innocent items being sent in – well, if I were trying to send more cement than is authorized for building (it is not fully embargoed), then I’d surround it with spices myself.
All this said, it still may turn out that Israel acted disproportionately, in more than a 20/20 hindsight sense. But there is scant evidence for anything other than clumsiness and bad planning at this point.
June 2, 2010, 1:47 pmduh says:
“Please explain where Israel robbed anyone?”
They stole the cameras, video recorders, cell phones, and computers from all of the people on board the ship.
Next question.
(Oh, but I am sure that they kept all of these image recording devices so that no inaccurate images of what happened would leak out!)
June 2, 2010, 1:49 pmDangerMouse says:
Wrong. If collective punishment is the point, then Israel would not permit the ships to dock after they’re searched for weapons. But they do let them dock after a search, so your idiotic theory about collective punishment is worthless.
June 2, 2010, 1:49 pmMoneyrunner says:
I will not be snarky so I will not question your reading comprehension by pointing out that I was replying to you.
To answer your question, if I were a “peace activist” on a ship and I was being boarded by a military force, I would not attack them with clubs or knives trying to beat them to death. Neither would I try to throw them overboard. Just as I would not do the same if the police came to my home.
If I did any of those things, I would expect them to react vigorously, and if they saw themselves and their fellows in fear of their lives, I would expect them to defend themselves with deadly force.
What would you do?
June 2, 2010, 1:50 pm1040 says:
enforce their collective punishment while trying to claim the upper moral hand of being peaceable and not attacking civilians. the same game as always.
June 2, 2010, 1:52 pmChris Travers says:
It’s worth noting that in the Barbary wars, the pirates were treated as privateers, not outright pirates.
June 2, 2010, 1:52 pmGoggins says:
If anyone thinks that a mob of several dozen people armed only with pipes and knives, can’t overpower a few soldiers armed with pistols, recall the two Israeli soldiers who took a wrong turn in Ramallah soon after the Palestinians launched the Second Intifada (or watch on YouTube). After the soldiers were lynched and torn apart, Palestinians literally danced in their blood. One attacker displayed his bloody hands from a window above the crowd, which roared its approval.
June 2, 2010, 1:52 pm1040 says:
hahahahaha. you win the thread!
June 2, 2010, 1:52 pm1040 says:
sure. so the israeli commandos were indeed armed and dangerous, and hence a certain level of defensiveness from those threatened was reasonable. we are agreed then.
June 2, 2010, 1:53 pmJohn Emerson says:
This is exactly the point– if Israel wanted to starve Gaza, Gaza would starve.
Malnutrition is widespread in Gaza. Gaza is starving. True, they haven’t all died yet.
I doubt that very many on the home team here actually care a bit about the effects of the blockade, since all Palestinians are murderous terrorists and should just die, but the effects of the blockade are severe.
Christian Zionists are pretty common. It’s all tied up with the seven headed dragon and so on. Israel’s American friends are really quite something.
June 2, 2010, 1:54 pm1040 says:
ahem. have you seen the list of blockaded items? the blockade is about collective punishment and to reduce the civilian population of gaza to a state of breaking point.
June 2, 2010, 1:55 pmDave Johnson says:
To answer your question, a Zionist by the definition of the Arab apologists: anyone who defends the democratic state of Israel and understands the need for this little country to defend itself against all of its neighbors who daily feed their populations disgusting hatred of the Jew and understands that the reason behind this is that the Arab world is filled with folks who need an outlet for their misery caused by their lack of productivity, status, ingenuity, social progress, political progress, womens’ rights, and pretty much anything that would demonstrate progress beyond the 7th century. Those that would disagree with the beheading of a woman for refusing to wear a complete body/face veil, those that do not think cartoonists should be stabbed to death for painting a harmless cartoon of their “prophet” allah. That’s a Zionist.
June 2, 2010, 1:55 pmyankev says:
Yeah, that would explain the 15,000 tons of food, medical supplies and other aid that Israel sends through EVERY WEEK and why only weapons and dual use items are barred. And why Israel furnishes Gaza with electricity and water. And treats Gazans free of charge in Israel’s hospitals. Yep, Israel is dumb as well as evil; here they are bent on genocide but just can’t figure out how to do it properly.
June 2, 2010, 1:58 pmDangerMouse says:
No matter how many loony conspiracy theories you pull out of your butt, facts work against you. All they wanted to do was search for weapons, and then the ships could’ve passed through. So, that’s not collective punishment – Israel has no problem with non-weapon goods passing through.
And what’s this “same game as always” crap? Nice bit of anti-Semitism there, bub. Israel is always in the wrong, attacking civliants, the same game as always, huh? Why is it that people carrying water for Hamas – an organization dedicated to murdering jewish civilians – always blame Israel for the crimes that Hamas engages in? It’s such an obvious case of projction that Freud would be amused that anyone takes it seriously.
June 2, 2010, 2:00 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Sorry, haven’t read Revelation in a while. It gives me a headache.
Your second sentence is quite illuminating. To be an American friend of Israel you have to be wrapped up in end-times theology, praying for Har Meggido, instead of wishing to support the only true friend the US has in several time zones? Interesting.
June 2, 2010, 2:02 pmDangerMouse says:
1040 is carrying water for Hamas. Facts won’t get him in the way of a rant saying that “the same game as always” for Israel is to “murder” (his words) civilians.
The guy is a complete tool. I’ve stopped trying to analyze why libs like him get their jollies off on protecting Hamas and other terrorist organizations. At first, I thought it was some more of the same “power to the people” garbage about promoting the oh-so-downtrodden terrorists, but nowadays I think that they just hate Jews.
June 2, 2010, 2:03 pmJKB says:
Such is war. Your observations are very good reasons for the Palestinians to negotiate a peace in good faith.
Israel provides, as required by international law, for humanitarian and medical supplies to reach the civilian population. They also supply electricity. The nature of war does not require they rebuild the industrial and productive facilities of an opposing party of the hostilities.
June 2, 2010, 2:03 pmrichard says:
By 1040Assistant Village Idiot: As to 1040’s list of innocent items being sent in — well, if I were trying to send more cement than is authorized for building (it is not fully embargoed), then I’d surround it with spices myself.
Cement is not fully embargoed but Israel only allows cement that is targeted for specific building plans which have been approved. The Palestianians claim that they need cement for make-shift repairs, smaller projects that don’t warrant a full building plan, etc. It doesn’t seem to me that allowing more cement in would jeopardize Israel’s security -how is cement a weapon? My impression of the embargo is that much of it is attuned to Israel’s security needs but some of it is rules and regulations developed to irk Hamas and the Gaza Palestinians.
:
June 2, 2010, 2:03 pmnoahp says:
Saw an article somewhere the other day about a gourmet restaurant in Gaza. Personally, I had been duped by CNN that Gaza was a rubble strewn wasteland inhabited by noble starving Palestinians. Duped I say!
June 2, 2010, 2:05 pmJohn Emerson says:
I’m looking forward to hearing more from the people on the boat, who so far in scattered quotes have not confirmed the Israeli story of what happened. Even the official Israeli story doesn’t make them look that good, but we don’t know even that it’s true.
I’m still wondering what’s so terrible about cement.
June 2, 2010, 2:05 pmMark Buehner says:
And how does this help that cause? Again- how does killing a couple of meaningless protesters enforce ‘collective punishment’ on any kind of scale worth considering? By your own theory, Israel would be better served to continue their greater goal of punishment by not harming a hair on these people heads and hence drawing international heat on their program. Right?
No, what you are suggesting is that somehow this tiny act of mindless brutality (which is what it would be if the intent of Israel was to go to that ship and kill a few people.. not too many though) was more important to Israel than their greater goal of genocidal brutality. That makes no sense. Your theory is paradoxical.
June 2, 2010, 2:06 pmJohn Emerson says:
15,000 tons is a big number, Yankev, but it’s not enough. Just because it’s more than you can count on your fingers and toes doesn’t mean that it’s enough.
June 2, 2010, 2:07 pmMark Buehner says:
Its used to build tunnels.
June 2, 2010, 2:09 pmBob from Ohio says:
The British PM is being a little dense here.
It is preferable for Israel for Hamas to be in control. The only alternative is another gang of terrorists (the PLO) and Hamas is cruder and more backwards than Abbas and the other front guys for the PLO. Abbas and others can be mistaken for “statesmen” but the Hamas brutes cannot.
June 2, 2010, 2:09 pmq says:
Yes, but paintball guns are generally non-lethal and it’s quite difficult to take out an eye (it’s quite difficult to do that with any kind of gun). I also question that they are “capable” of causing very serious harm, unless you really think someone getting shot in the eye is at all probable. I’m sure they hurt, but “very serious harm”? Are you serious?
It’s also clear from the video that they had no intent of using their handguns, as it required quite a bit of provocation before they were given permission to fire. Moreover, you ignored my point that the vast majority of passengers understood the Israelis peaceful intent. Since none of us were there to properly gauge context (which is the only way one can judge the reasonableness of each side’s actions), just look at what happened on the other flotillas, as that is direct evidence of what the vast majority of people would do in the same situation (i.e. the definition of reasonableness). They did not find it necessary to attack the Israelis. And the Israelis did not find it necessary to use any force, lethal or not. Thus, your attempt to impute a violent intent simply does not jive with reality.
June 2, 2010, 2:10 pmq says:
What’s so valuable about it that it requires violence to prevent its confiscation?
June 2, 2010, 2:11 pmEH says:
Do you have a cite for that “15,000 pounds?” All I can find are references to a statement by Mark Regev.
And what is weaponly or dual-use about books?
June 2, 2010, 2:11 pmyankev says:
Yeah, I’m sure Israel was trying to make a little money on the side. And that all that stuff will show up next week on e-bay.
Wow. Who said they weren’t? As many have pointed out, you can be armed, dangerous and still be unprepared, under-armed for the situation, overpowered. And despite those things, if you know what you are doing, have reinforcements and are lucky, you may just survive and end up iklling the people who are trying to kill you.
If you ever develope an allergy to straw, your knuckles are going to break out something fierce.
No, what I said was that if no bothered rebutting the likes of Greenwald, the likes of Mearson would go around claiming that as proof that Greenwald is correct.
If you want to follow that up with “Who cares what the likes of Mearson think?”, that’s your privilege.
No, there’s more — some of the commandoes had BALL POINT PENS. You can really take an eye out with those things! And one of them was wearing eyeglasses, just like the ones they used to kill that Sicilian gangster at the end of Godfather Part 3. (Okay, I don’t really know if one of them was wearing glasses, but he MIGHT have been!)
June 2, 2010, 2:14 pmJohn Emerson says:
To be specific, it’s about ten pounds of food a week. And lots of other necessities are embargoed.
All they wanted to do was search for weapons, and then the ships could’ve passed through.
Not true.
It’s been interesting. I seldom come this way and came more or less by accident today. The mix of goon /intellectual ratio has been fun. Sorry to abandon 1050, but I’m trying to quit this stuff, unsuccessfully I confess. He seems capable of taking care of himself (or herself).
June 2, 2010, 2:16 pmLongCat says:
So on the other five ships, the “armed and dangerous” Israelis killed the innocent passengers, right? It would be a bizarre coincidence if the only ship on which Israel used deadly force was the one with video of club-wielding passengers. If Israel came out shooting from the beginning, why only the one ship? If self defense was required against the armed Israelis on the sixth ship, why didn’t the lack of self-defense on the first five lead to passenger deaths?
June 2, 2010, 2:17 pmDave Johnson says:
You’re being disingenuous. We all know what the people on the boat will say. They are not “peace activists” but are avowed enemies of Israel? They are professional myth-makers and agitators. Rest assured you will not wait or wonder long, for their side knows how to use a compliant media in Europe and the Middle East.
You’re also being glib about the cement. Cement builds reinforced bunkers that require a magnitude higher force and risk and loss to take in the event of hostile encounter. In any event, I was not aware that the “starving” people of Gaza are in the midst of a building binge that required so much attention to their cement needs. Maybe they should start their own cement plant…sorry I forgot the Jews blockade is making it difficult for them to regain their Top 10 GDP ranking.
June 2, 2010, 2:17 pmyankev says:
Gee, there’s a shock. Kind of like Rachel Corrie’s companions who told several contradicto5ryu stories like the one about the bulldozer backing up over her to make sure she was dead, or running past her and rearing up on its hind treds to turn around with a cartoon snarl on its grill and chase her to the ground in a rapid sprint. And the photos they released that were taken at a different time of day than her death, claiming they were taken moments before.
Or like the straight story that we got from Mohammed Al Dura’s father.
It is not a weapon. It is dual-purpose mateiral. Hamas has been known to divert UN supplied shipments of cement, rebar and other building supplies and using them to build fortified bunkers and smuggling tunnels.
June 2, 2010, 2:23 pmRoger Zimmerman says:
I agree that the parent was illogical and uncivil. Here is the logical version:
If Hamas were _actually_ interested in the well-being of the Gazan population, it would free its economy to enable the people to start producing sufficient goods and services so as to provide for their own survival and flourishing. Given the price signals, and existing skill sets, I’m guessing that Gaza would become agriculturally self-sufficient in very short order. Those interested in employment could find it, and no longer need to while away their time launching missiles at Israeli civilians. The government would have resources and attention to punish those involved in these activities. A simultaneous liberalization in the political/social arena would further enhance the lives of the people, and would enable the virtuous cycle where new ideas can reach the ears that can put them into practice for the benefit of all.
Is there any doubt that, should these policies be adopted, there would be a sea change in the Israeli population’s attitudes? And, that the Israeli leadership – perhaps a newly elected leadership (it happens all the time in Israel) – would follow by changing _their_ policies? The blockade would be gradually softened – with *obvious* trading vessels allowed through under close surveillance. And, eventually, the blockade would become unnecessary. Ultimately, this would be the path to long-term peaceful coexistence, and even national sovereignty for the Palestinians. Indeed, this was the hope of many Israelis that advocated for the Gaza withdrawal originally – that it would become a showcase and testing ground for the formation of Palestinian civil society, that would eventually, by virtue of incremental success, lead to an independent Palestinian state.
The only possible argument against this scenario is a form of “soft bigotry of low expectations”, with more blaming of Israel for making this kind of change impossible. The “occupation” (an invalid term, in the case of Gaza and 95% of the West Bank) is the excuse for everything bad that happens to the Palestinians. They bear no responsibility and cannot be expected to modify their own behavior to act like a civilized, modern society.
I am not naive enough to think that this scenario _will_ happen. But, that is not because I think that the Palestinians are incapable of making this happen. I know that all people are able to do this, and that, with modern technology and the wonders of free trade, the transformation can be extremely rapid, bringing prosperity to a society within years (e.g. 2005-2010, to name one salient time period). The reason it probably won’t happen is that the present Palestinian policies are based on a fundamental ideology which devalues individualism and freedom. This same ideology glorifies violent resistance against Israel, and adds to the misery, on both sides.
June 2, 2010, 2:23 pmMark Buehner says:
Compare
Summary of weekly transfer of aid to Palestinians.
Contrast
wiki
Who’s been stealing the aid again?
June 2, 2010, 2:23 pmMona says:
Re: Greenwald. I practiced law w/ him for several years, and he is more than supremely capable of mastering any area of law, including International Law. That said, I have privately communicated w/ him that it is important to be sure that the commentary he offers pertaining to complex maritime issues is accurate — and I am not saying he has been inaccurate, just that some of his views apparently conflict with those of some IL experts.
As for those who suspect him of merely being a partisan hack, nothing could be less true. He is driven, to the depths of his soul, to defend truth as he sees it. The man could have made a fortune staying with Wachtel Lipton, but chose to go on his own for the freedom it provided. That he then left practicing altogether, for legal and political activism, is totally in character.
June 2, 2010, 2:23 pm1040 says:
Water? Oh my god, am I violating a blockade? Also, I am disappointed that you did not nominate me for membership to that exclusive club, the Al Qaeda Seven.
Enforcing the blockade does, and that was the point of this exercise. And the demonstration of power with the concomitant plausible deniability.
June 2, 2010, 2:24 pm1040 says:
so they need to demonstrate to massa that they mean well and maybe a decade later they might be rewarded for good behavior?
June 2, 2010, 2:26 pmDanInAustin says:
How is this any different than when the US Coast Guard boards a ship, aside from the fact that the US troops would not have paint ball guns? I know the left doesn’t like the fact that Israel has a blockade on Gaza, but we had blockades on Germany and Japan (and didn’t allow food through.)
I have seen at least one report of bullet proof vests and night vision equipment found aboard the ship. I’m not sure these would count as “dual use” items.
June 2, 2010, 2:27 pmMark Buehner says:
With paint-ball guns.
Well, thanks for puttin it down on paper. People can see and judge for themselves if what you suggest makes a lick of sense.
June 2, 2010, 2:28 pmyankev says:
According to Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs as of May 22, blockquote>Since the end of the IDF operation in Gaza (18 Jan 2009), 944,808 tons of aid and 133,961,636 liters of fuel have been delivered to the Gaza Strip. My math may be off by a bit, but not by much.
June 2, 2010, 2:29 pmBob from Ohio says:
Israel has over 300 F-15s and F-16s versus 220 or so Turkey F-16s. The Israeli pilots are good, they would have air superority at the point of attack and would be operating at short range. I predict serious Turkish losses.
The Turkish navy has no carriers. So, it would depend on long flights from Turkey for air cover against an active and effective Israeli air force. I predict serious Turkish losses.
While the Turkish government is Islamist, the military is not necessary so yet. Will it obey its orders to attack what 4 years ago was an ally of sorts?
A war with Turkey is not a slam bang win for Turkey. I therefore conclude that Turkey will just bluster.
June 2, 2010, 2:30 pmJKB says:
Really, a sovereign nation lawfully capturing a ship in breach of blockade, whose passengers assaulted members of their the armed forces lawfully boarding the vessel, stole items from those passengers. Are you sure they are not being held as part of the investigation or evidence? It would seem that images or recordings of early preparation of weapons, planning and practice would show intent?
June 2, 2010, 2:30 pm1040 says:
PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. And sidearms that could and did kill. Selective rendition much?
June 2, 2010, 2:32 pmyankev says:
Despite your earlier award to someone else, I think we need to award you the thread winner for that one.
June 2, 2010, 2:32 pmDangerMouse says:
Water? Oh my god, am I violating a blockade?
And here we see the snark, proving his unseriousness and trolling. As if it it were in doubt at all. You guys need to be more perceptive to this sort of crap.
Enforcing the blockade does, and that was the point of this exercise. And the demonstration of power with the concomitant plausible deniability.
When a person starts saying things like “plausible deniability”, you know you’re dealing with a member of the tinfoil-wearing moonbat brigade.
June 2, 2010, 2:33 pmq says:
You keep saying this without any evidence, armchair psychologist. It’s possible that they purposefully rappeled onto each boat one-by-one, underarmed and undermanned in order to provoke a violent response so that they could “demonstrate” their power by resorting to handguns after the provocation intensified.
But unless one has a predetermined bias in these matters, why would one expect that to be the case rather than conclude that the Israelis had no violent intent, which is evidenced by the commandeering of the other 5 flotillas? It seems unreasonably conspiratorial to think they deliberately chose a method that under normal circumstances would be enough to commandeer a ship, but not enough to repel violence, in hopes that they could “plausibly deny” their violent intent rather than their intent to, you know, non-violently commandeer the ship.
June 2, 2010, 2:34 pmDangerMouse says:
No kidding. Next he’ll start saying how his dentist is implanting microchips in his teeth…
June 2, 2010, 2:35 pmyankev says:
This from 1040, who denies what did happen, won’t allow Israel to deny even what did happen, spins amazing stories, and brands implausible anything said in defense of Israel by virtue of its being said in Israel? At this point I wonder if he’s secretly a Zionist working as a sock puppet to make the useful idiots look bad.
June 2, 2010, 2:36 pm1040 says:
so, to be clear, seriousness and non-trolling is to accuse me of “carrying water for hamas”.
wow, that is serious!
why would i need to do that when you seem to do the job just fine? how long did it take for you to toss around these abuses and insults?
and who said “i won’t allow israel to deny, or denies what happened”. the thread at this point has devolved into nonsense with the rabidness out in full flow, so it is time to get on with work.
June 2, 2010, 2:39 pmDangerMouse says:
1040,
I don’t cast pearls before swine. You’ve more than hanged yourself in this thread, so it’s fitting that you retreat now.
June 2, 2010, 2:42 pmyankev says:
Of course, if I were going to do this, I would probably opt to wear concealed body armor and trauma plates to protect myself from things like being clubbed or stabbed. (Btw, were these commandoes at least wearing helmets? I sure hope so.) And I’d sure take out more than 10 of the innocent passengers; that’s not even one magazine full of 9mm pistol ammunition.
June 2, 2010, 2:42 pmq says:
That’s unfortunate. Maybe next time you should ignore the non-substantive points rather than the substantive ones, at least if you don’t want a thread to devolve into pointless sniping?
June 2, 2010, 2:43 pmkiwi dave says:
Win. Next they’ll have Israeli commandoes running on the deck with scissors.
June 2, 2010, 2:45 pmJoel Rosenberg says:
And fuhrerbunkers. The evil Israelis, rubbing their hands together in glee, apparently prefer that the head Hamasholes hide out in apartments in densely populated neighborhoods, and in hospitals and such, and send women and children up to the roof when the planes come overhead.
As to the proportionality argument, as I understand it, the two factors to be balanced are the amount of harm done to noncombatants, and the military goal, in the light of the presence of noncombatants not providing a legal shield for combatants.
Which suggests a simple, noncontroversial solution to the general problem: ask the combatants to separate themselves from the noncombatants — say, by picking one of the six ships to hold those who are looking for a fight — and clearly identify which one it is. Alternately, if they’d be courteous — and law-abiding — enough to wear some uniform or other visible insignia, and separate themselves, say, at the bow of the various ships, they could receive the individual attention that they wish without much bother to the other passengers.
I’m sure that they’d agree.
June 2, 2010, 2:49 pmBored Lawyer says:
When I first started practicing law, our firm represented an electric company who was being sued by a woman who lived next to an electrical relay which the company had installed near her house. She claimed that the magnetic rays given off were slowly killing her. She used to come into Court wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil and aluminum foil lined clothes, which she claimed protected her from the mangetic rays. (She told the trial judge that there were plenty of such mangetic rays in his courtroom too.)
After we prevailed on summary judgment she appealed. Our brief to the appellate division pointed out that her claim completely lacked any evidence and thus consisted of nothing but “bald assertions.”
She then called an associate in the firm and left a long message complaining about the brief and adding, “By the way, I am NOT bald. I resent you calling me bald when I am not.”
Some of the posters here must be related to this woman.
June 2, 2010, 2:51 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Which makes his misinterpretations, including his absurd interpretation of “proportionality”, seem not just wrong but dishonest.
That I’ll grant you. In fact, it’s admirable that he attacks everyone who pursues policies he doesn’t like, including people on his side of the spectrum.
June 2, 2010, 2:52 pmJKB says:
Regarding the WP article cited in the update:
The “experts” seem to be ignorant of the SCOTUS “Prize Cases”
In regards to neutral ships taken as prize by the Union for running the blockade of Confederate ports
In this case, the international community has done Hamas no favor in that as they are included in the “peace negotiations” they can hardly be consider non-belligerents.
June 2, 2010, 2:55 pmJoel Rosenberg says:
The USCG is attempting to interfere with the importation of, mainly, unlicensed pharmaceuticals; that’s obviously a matter of greater importance than the IDF attempting to minimize the number of missiles being launched at elementary schools around dismissal time. One has to keep a sense of, oh, proportionality about such things.
June 2, 2010, 2:55 pm1040 says:
ok. one last response.
so the israeli military had threatened to end the blockade run and warned of severe consequences. they proceeded to enforce with trained and visibly armed commandos rappelling down from helicopters. many people cowered in response. some tried self defense with what they had at hand, and about 10 of those activists were killed in the process because the israeli soldiers had enough lethal weaponry to do that. the other non lethal weaponry could still cause serious injury and also served as evidence of israel’s benign intent in this process.
June 2, 2010, 2:55 pmAaron says:
I don’t know whether there is some more specific use in naval law, but a white flag does not mean complete surrender. It’s a signal of peaceful intentions and a willingness to talk. Attacking under a white flag is perfidy, yes. So is attacking those bearing it. Defending against either attack is not perfidy.
It seems pretty clear to me that under generally accepted international law the Israelis are free to intercept negotiate boarding, and if necessary even attack blockade runners such as this flotilla, even in international waters. Still, I think that “if necessary” part of attacking needs to be remembered. Boarding without permission is an attack — often legal and necessary — but still an attack.
Exactly who is morally blameworthy for this incident is a highly fact-intensive question, and I’ve not been able to find a detailed enough time-line to satisfy me.
If the flotilla had been flying the white flag all along, then it was clearly not meant as a signal of surrender meaning “go ahead and board”, rather only peaceful intentions.
The flotilla was warned that they would be intercepted if they attempted to breach the blockade. Was this only as a general warning in the days prior? Were there actual communications immediately prior to boarding, or was this a sneak attack? Obviously, if there were, the flotilla is to blame for the violence. If not, I don’t see how the flotilla is supposed to immediately distinguish between being boarded by a state acting legitimately versus a violent attack. (I’m given to understand that the incident took place at night, though I haven’t seen anything directly saying so. This seems like a mistake frankly, where the majority of people on-board will be groggy and have poorer judgement, as well as the lighting making it harder to identify the boarders and their intentions.)
June 2, 2010, 2:55 pmTNeloms says:
If you think that, then what do you make of this?
Also, do you think that Egypt’s blockade is similarly designed to collectively punish and break the Palestinians in Gaza?
In any case, you may be right that the blockade is too strict. Here’s a resource for information about the blockade (which includes the full list): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7545636.stm. But does that mean you think there shouldn’t be a blockade at all, or that you just think they should allow more items in? If it’s the latter, then isn’t it still okay for Israel to enforce the blockade? It seems the proper way to deal with this issue is to focus on changing the blockade list, which has been done, rather than to make a run on the blockade. And can’t you at least imagine that it’s too strict not because of the desire to punish but because of erring on the side of strictness due to legitimate security concerns? Are you 100% sure that it’s too strict out of a desire to punish civilians?
June 2, 2010, 2:59 pmEH says:
Welcome to the internet! Next time please just post a URL, thanks.
June 2, 2010, 3:01 pmOrenWithAnE says:
Yes, but if I knew that I was violating a blockade (and the activists certainly knew) then I would not begrudge the nation the right to enforce it. When you commit an act of hostility, you take your chances on the result of hostilities.
If that were the case, why would Israel allow any food/fuel/water in at all? They could starve out the whole strip in a matter of weeks if they wanted to.
There is no guarantee that anyone needs to make your life pleasant during the course of active hostilities. If they are sick of war, they are free to surrender to terms.
June 2, 2010, 3:01 pmBod says:
I’m still trying to square Mona’s claim that while Greenwald left a cushy job in order to be more involved in legal and political activism, he’s not a partisan hack.
Oopsie. Not *merely* a partisan hack.
June 2, 2010, 3:01 pmautist says:
Here’s some more of that list of blockaded items:
Paintballs, Playdoh, worcestershire sauce, Frisbees, paper clips (you can put an eye out with one of those), dirt, navel lint, Post-It notes, dried leaves, prime numbers, superballs, three of anything, Star Trek DVDs, head cheese, Harold Robbins novels, Wikipedia, LOL cats,…
June 2, 2010, 3:03 pmwhit says:
in the video, i posted at :52 seconds in, you can clearly see an israeli soldier holding up and (presumably) firing his paintball gun even after numerous assaults have been committed by passengers. that’s pretty telling as of the level of restraint employed that even after the occupants were swingin’ and throwin’ stuff at him/his fellow soldier, he’s still TRYING to defuse the situation with a friggin’ paintball gun.
June 2, 2010, 3:06 pmOrenWithAnE says:
There is video of an Israeli seaman giving them a direct warning with a megaphone.
Cement is required to build tunnels underneath the Egyptian border through which weapons are smuggled. The Israelis and Egyptians have been destroying the tunnels and would prefer that they not be rebuilt.
June 2, 2010, 3:07 pmNobody Really says:
No they don’t, they restrict the free flow of weapons by subjecting the basic food stuff and equipment to inspection.
These “activists” could have gotten the supplies to Gaza without attempting to break the blockade. They tried to break the blockade so that future shipments would not be subject to inspection and could contain weapons and other materials to resupply Hamas more efficiently than digging tunnels from Egypt.
June 2, 2010, 3:13 pmNobody Really says:
It can be used to build bunkers. It is dual purpose – for military or civilian construction.
June 2, 2010, 3:17 pmDon Miller says:
My girlfriend’s cousin is one of the Americans that was on this “peace flotilla”. She is a left-leaning lawyer who has been involved in palestinian causes for several years. Her father is Israeli.
She was arrested and deported. It may very well be that Israel will block her from ever entering their country again.
Concrete is embargoed because it has a dual-use. It is used not only for the construction of civilian buildings, but also for military bunkers. Small bunkers, suitible for ammo storage or rocket manufacturing, could be built with small quantities that were let in for “humanitarian purposes”.
June 2, 2010, 3:18 pmBored Lawyer says:
Shortly after the incident, Al Jazeera and other news sources were reporting that the ships were flying white flags and that the Israelis attacked first. In other words, they were being accused of perfidy — and since these were uniformed soldiers, guilty of a despicable war crime. That was the claim at that point.
Then, when the Israelis released videotapes, it seems to have been accepted that the persons on board attacked first, albeit with knives, pipes and other items at hand. The white flag part seems to have been completely forgotten. Instead, you have many defending the “right” of those on board to defend themselves, and others claiming it was all an Israeli plot to create “plausible deniability.”
The white flag works both ways. To my mind, if you run up the white flag, that means peaceful surrender. If you then attack those who are boarding as they board and are first to attack, you are guilty of a despicable act of perfidy. (Althought whether non-uniformed combatants are technically guilty of war crimes is another question.)
June 2, 2010, 3:18 pmOrenWithAnE says:
You omitted one important point — they warned the blockade runners repeatedly that they could either sail to Ashdod, have the cargo unloaded, inspected and delivered or the Israelis would board and do it for them.
June 2, 2010, 3:19 pmyankev says:
Sorry for the inconvenience. I can never get the insert link feature at VC to work. — keep getting error messages. You can take the boy out of the 1950s but you can’t take the 1950s out of the boy.
Where’s that flying pack they promised that I’d have by now?
Beer cans, pots and pans, cigarette butts, garbage trucks . . .ships and shoes and sealing wax, cabbages and kings, . . . brown paper packages tied up with string. . .and two hard boiled eggs [honk] make that three hard boiled eggs.
1040 has convinced me — this was obviously a clever ruse, just like the soldier who jumped 30 feet to a lower deck and pretended to be thrown, the ones who stabbed themselves, and the one who pretended to let the passengers try to hang him. A frame up, I tell you — a clear put up job to ensure plausible deniability. May I have my meds now, please?
June 2, 2010, 3:19 pmPD Shaw says:
There appears to be some assumption here that a blockade is purposed only for military weapons. The 4th Geneva Conventions recognizes that the purpose of a blockade is to destroy the economic capacity of an opposing belligerent. For humanitarian reasons the blockade must still allow through medicine and religious materials for civilian use, as well as food and clothes to the extent they can be directed to children and pregnant women. (Article 23)
A real blockade would not allow cement, building materials or comfort foods.
June 2, 2010, 3:20 pmDon Miller says:
As far as the Israeli paintball guns, when I read that I assumed they were armed similar to the corrections officers in our local prison. They use paintball guns sometimes too. The paintballs are usually filled with pepper spray.
If the Israeli’s weren’t using the pepperballs, maybe we need to give them a reference to a US supplier, they might be a little more effective next time.
June 2, 2010, 3:22 pmMarcus says:
You know what might be more informative than a b@#$h session aimed at Glenn Greenwald? A discussion on the merits of the legality/illegality of the occupation, blockade and raid discussion.
June 2, 2010, 3:22 pmrichard says:
It doesn’t seem to me that allowing more cement in would jeopardize Israel’s security –how is cement a weapon?
Cement is required to build tunnels underneath the Egyptian border through which weapons are smuggled. The Israelis and Egyptians have been destroying the tunnels and would prefer that they not be rebuilt.
Thanks. I think that explains why an embargo of unlimited cement would be reasonable.
The questions I still have before deciding on responsibility for the flotilla assault is how and when the nine or ten persons were killed – by automatic fire, by the first wave of commandoes, in the throes of battle, etc? The Israeli video clearly shows that the first wave of commandoes were viciously attacked and that none of them appear to be firing bullets as they descended. I would be very interested in seeing videos taken by the flotilla members and any videos showing the shooting deaths (the videos released by Israel don’t seem to show any deaths or, there are such videos, I have missed them)
June 2, 2010, 3:24 pmPD Shaw says:
JKB: “The “experts” seem to be ignorant of the SCOTUS “Prize Cases””
I take it some experts believe that case was wrongly decided and that Lincoln was a war criminal. Beyond the legal merits, do any of these experts recognize how incongruous and discriminatory it is for the U.S. to take the position that the U.S. can do something to win its civil war, but other countries cannot, or at least Jewish countries cannot?
June 2, 2010, 3:25 pmq says:
If you’re going to just rephrase your theory without addressing anything I said, I might as well just rephrase my rebuttal:
Your argument seems to be that the Israelis had the intention of using lethal force on the passengers of the ship. And that they were armed with paintball guns and forbidden to use lethal force without permission in order to have “plausible” deniability of such lethal intent. And to further add to their plausible deniability, they would rappel onto the ships one by one. And, that despite clear instructions of not responding with lethal force unless they were given permission in the face of violent provocation and resistance, they fully expected such resistance so that they could carry out their lethal intent.
Isn’t that rather conspiratorial? Isn’t the simpler explanation that the Israelis intended exactly what happened on the five other ships, not what happened on the sixth ship? Unless we simply presume a priori that Israelis are evil, I really do not see why the Israelis would want to provoke an attack so that they could kill a handful of passengers and suffer further opprobrium from the rest of the world. Israel does a lot of stupid things, but here you’re simply implying their murderous intent is so strong that it has overcomed all their facilities for logic. It’s not exactly a plausible theory for even an individual, let alone an entire nation.
June 2, 2010, 3:25 pmHyphenated American says:
To start with, I would like to hear why the liberals on this board refer to jihadist militia on board of the ship as “innocent civilians” and “peace activists”. Moreover, I would like liberals to condemn obviously disproportionate response of the aforementioned jihadists to the attempt of Israeli peace activists to stage a non-violent sit-in on the jihadist ship.
June 2, 2010, 3:25 pmLastly, Israel should not free any of the jihadists until their identities are confirmed.
Aaron says:
Thanks. The video described in that NY Times article is apparently this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4
While it obviously could be faked (recorded after, not actually turned on, etc.), this satisfies my curiosity on this point.
June 2, 2010, 3:27 pmJoel Rosenberg says:
The restraint of IDF soldiers never ceases to amaze me. Not just the elite commando types — but there’s never, as far as I’ve been able to tell, even one incident of, say, a reservist responding to a hail of rocks by spraying the crowd.
June 2, 2010, 3:31 pmwhit says:
nice irrelevancy. there has never been an army in the history of the world that has not seen occasional abuses.
i am referencing a SPECIFIC INCIDENT. *nobody* is claiming that the IDF, and specific members thereof have never overreacted or used excessive force/tactics.
June 2, 2010, 3:35 pmyankev says:
New winner! Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! Marcus, count the number of comments discussing Glenn Greenwald and the number discussing the blockade and raid. (The “occupation” and whether indeed it is an occupation under international law has been discussed on any number of VC threads over the years.) Congratulations — you beat even 1040!
June 2, 2010, 3:37 pmyankev says:
Yes, but how can 1040 expect anything better of a people who would rape nuns, distribute chewing gum that turns Arab teen agers into sex addicts, massacre thousands of innocent civilians in Jenin, distribute consumer items that make Arab men impotent, inject AIDS into Arab babies in Israeli hospitals, murder Jesus, control the world trade in drugs and pornography and prostitution, manipulate the world into two world wars and countless smaller wars as well as the Russian revolution, murder innocent hostages — and that’s only a fraction of what the Arabs have accused them of. No wonder 1040 finds his theories so much more plausible than yours.
June 2, 2010, 3:45 pmMona says:
Thing is, David, like me (who has taken to self-identifying as “left-libertarian,” to distinguish myself from neo-libertarians), Greenwald has no “on his side of the spectrum,” save those who are committed to civil liberties and opposition to wars of choice. Ideological labels are all but totally irrelevant to him, causing various others to label him as right-wing, paleocon, leftist, liberal, libertarian and etc. If, say, the netroots can be seen claiming him as of them, they do so without his saying nay or aye.
As for International Law, I am agnostic as to whether he has misrepresented anything unintentionally, as I have not undertaken to master the relevant law. But if he has been wrong — and that is a big if — it has not been intentional.
FWIW: My creds are Notre Dame Law, ’94.
June 2, 2010, 3:46 pmPlugInMonster says:
The latest leftist meme is “Israel is a pirate/rogue state and should be dealt with in the harshest possible manner”. Basically the left is laying the groundwork for the 2nd Holocaust.
June 2, 2010, 3:48 pmPlugInMonster says:
Credentialism. As if that proves your point.
June 2, 2010, 3:52 pmDangerMouse says:
Hey Mona,
Did you ever ask Greenwald if his commitment to truth in the depths of his soul was consistent with his lying sockpuppetry?
June 2, 2010, 3:55 pmLitigator London says:
Professor Greenwald asked what I might consider a proportionate military response by the State of Israel to the firing of rockets from Gaza into Israel.
I preface what follows with this: I regard it as one of the great injustices of the 20th Century that when a war weary Britain surrendered its mandate over Palestine to the UN, that President Truman and others gave in to Zionist pressure to transform the Balfour Declaration’s promise of “a Jewish National Home IN Palestine” to “a Jewish state carved out of Palestine”. It would have been better to accept the 1945 proposal of Lessing J. Rosenwald of the American Council for Judaism for the establishment of a secular state for the whole of Palestine (in the archives of the Truman Library).
Unfortunately, this proposal involved the USA and other countries also agreeing to take a substantial number of immigrant displaced persons for settlement and I understand that this was vigorously opposed by US WASPS in Foggy Bottom who did not wish their country clubs invaded by the Hassidim and other sects.
Pity, because Israel in its original borders is a now member state of the UN with the rights and legal obligations of a state but while it has the attributes of statehood, it does not meet international human right norms in a number of respects, not least the many facets of discrimination against those of its own citizens who happen not to be of the Jewish faith.
A bigger problem is the status of Gaza. Palestine is recognised by a state by quite a number of states, but not by others and in particular not by Israel. There are the further complications in that (i) Israel is no longer occupying Gaza and (ii) since the elections which put Hamas in power the writ of the government of Palestine does not run in Gaza.
Arguably, a proportionate non-military response might have been for Israel to ask the UN to send a peace enforcement force to Gaza on the basis that the rocket attacks were a threat to international peace and security – but this would have been a tacit recognition of the statehood of Palestine.
I think the only possible proportionate military response might have been further occupation with a “boots on the ground” operation and excluding insofar as possible all use of helicopter gunships, artillery and the like, but this solution would have involved the giving of full recognition to the international law obligations of an occupying power and, unfortunately, the track record of Israel in occupied Palestine, does not exactly inspire confidence that Israel would live up to its obligations in that exercise of that option.
There are distinctions to be drawn between different kinds of terrorists, in particular by reference to ideology, and many national liberations have involved “freedom fighters” who have resorted to acts of terrorism including in many of the UK’s former colonies. Under our present UK anti-terrorism legislation, even the Boston Tea Party would have qualified as an act of terrorism, A number of the early leaders of the state of Israel had resorted to or condoned acts of terrorism in Mandate Palestine in pursuit of their political aims and there are those in Gaza today who see themselves as freedom fighters. It is hard to fight such people with one’s hands tied.
But I draw comfort from the UK experience in Northern Ireland. We now have a solution there which presently appears to be working and I believe that a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine might work almost as well as the 1945 ACJ proposals might have.
While the “own goal” of the blockade/boarding is not encouraging, good may yet come of it. One lives in hope.
June 2, 2010, 3:57 pmgrog says:
If that were the case, why would Israel allow any food/fuel/water in at all? They could starve out the whole strip in a matter of weeks if they wanted to.
Yes, they could. They don’t want to. They want to keep the economy crippled, halt any betterment of the Gazans, and keep things uncomfortable but not so bad that the rest of the world does more than grumble.
Israeli actors have stated this in various ways –
Dov Weisglass: ‘The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger’
I’m having trouble finding another quote I saw on Israeli intent, but it was something like “no growth, no recovery, no crisis”. They want to choke off the civillian economy, leaving them dependent on aid without increasing sympathy for them, and by the way leaving the “nobody’s starving” talking point for supporters. Which is why they’re blocking anything that can keep the infrastructure in shape, blocking students from going to Israeli schools, etc.
This is obviously collective punishment.
June 2, 2010, 4:00 pmMona says:
Not at all: I abhor credialism, and I preceded that comment w/ “FWIW.” But more than once folks have challenged that I actually hold a law degree, on the basis that “anyone can be anything on these here Intertubes.” VC is a legal site, an important one in my estimation. Non-lawyers can and do frequently offer important points and insights, and I am not holding out my JD as reason to accept anything I spew — just establishing that I am what I say I am. Anyone can check the class list for ND ’94 and see that.
June 2, 2010, 4:01 pmPlugInMonster says:
You have no solution to Hamas rocket attacks. Oh and Hizbollah has horded 10K rockets in north Lebanon. I guess you have no solution to THAT either.
June 2, 2010, 4:03 pmPlugInMonster says:
Gaza elected Hamas – there are consequences to that. Thus the “collective punishment” is justified. Besides a 100 trucks come in from Israel every day with humanitarian aid. If this were a REAL seige(see Siege of Leningrad), we’d be hearing about 10K dead Gazans a day.
June 2, 2010, 4:08 pmShelbyC says:
Well, ’round here we don’t usually whip our credentials out for comparision.
June 2, 2010, 4:09 pmsgi says:
Ahem indeed. Are you deliberately lying or just misinformed by Palestinian propaganda?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/05_05_10_gazaimports.pdf
June 2, 2010, 4:13 pmB.D. says:
How do we know you aren’t lying about your credentials? I mean, if people are going to question your credentials anyway, why not just depend on the strength of your arguments? Who cares if some idiot on the internet doubts you?
Does it hurt your feelings?
BTW: Are you a one-named person, like Madonna or Cher? j/k
June 2, 2010, 4:16 pmMona says:
I’ve posted here before, tho infrequently, for some 5 years. But I chose to out myself as a lawyer who has practiced with Greenwald, something I had never done before. And I did that only for the limited purpose of addressing his character and motives, which have been laid at issue. Personal testimonials are frequently irrelevant, but as here, not always.
June 2, 2010, 4:17 pmMona says:
God no. I simply find it annoying and have generally been unable to resist engaging that distraction. In any event, Mr. Bernstein can see my entire name in my email addy. But for those who care, I am the “Holland” in the firm Greenwald, Christoph & Holland, for the 3 years or so that was the firm’s name.
June 2, 2010, 4:23 pmq says:
This thread got stupid real fast. If Mona wants to paste her (his?) law school and graduation year to avoid accusations of sock-puppetry, what’s the big deal?
June 2, 2010, 4:24 pmcelticdragonchick says:
I would like even better to see what happens if a couple of Turkish warships tag along next time. Great way to field test those new German MEKO frigates and see if the French SSM anti ship missiles work as advertised, as I suspect they do.
June 2, 2010, 4:26 pmHoystory says:
There’s the proportionality! Everything’s OK as long as the number of genocidal Islamist terrorists killed = the number of Jews killed.
You know what, I think most Arab states would take that trade and then we’d all be rid of those pesky Jews.
*Pesky Jews comment is sarcasm and not intended to be a represent any anti-Semitism on my part*
June 2, 2010, 4:28 pmMona says:
Thank you.
June 2, 2010, 4:29 pmRowerinVA says:
That post wins the thread, and possible the entire month. Well spoken.
June 2, 2010, 4:32 pmcelticdragonchick says:
I was unaware that Megan McCardle and Andrew Sullivan are Palestinian propagandists.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/06/what-is-israels-blockade-for/57574/
June 2, 2010, 4:32 pmDavid Bernstein says:
There you go, this is exactly the issue. I asked you a legal question about the Gaza incursion of 2008, and instead of answering it in a straightforward manner, you start with a legally irrelevant disquisition on the rights and wrongs of the founding of Israel in 1948.
Your concern is not international law, as you purport, but you have a problem with Israel’s existence to begin with. So, from now on, be honest and stop using international law as a ruse, and acknowledge that there is nothing Israel could do that would meet with your approval, short of surrender. That’s a perfectly honest, though mistaken, position, and if more “humanitarian” or “international law” advocates would simply admit this, we could have an honest discussion, instead of torturing legal concepts and whatnot to suit the underlying agenda.
June 2, 2010, 4:34 pmcelticdragonchick says:
Ah! Everybody killed by Israeli soldiers automatically becomes an Islamist terrorist.
Is that sort of like the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation?
June 2, 2010, 4:35 pmnicehonesty says:
You can tell that reality is slowly overtaking the initial narrative; it looks like certain lefty commenters no longer feel comfortable popping in to
vent their spleens against Israelpush back against DB.It’s down to the dregs whose only participation at the VC seem to be infesting DB’s threads and spamming their catalog of complaints against the evil Jews.
June 2, 2010, 4:38 pmDangerMouse says:
And I did that only for the limited purpose of addressing his character and motives, which have been laid at issue. Personal testimonials are frequently irrelevant, but as here, not always.
Great, then perhaps you’ll comment on how his commitment to truth in the depth of his soul is consistent with his well documented and confirmed history of lying sockpuppetry.
June 2, 2010, 4:40 pmRoger Zimmerman says:
(not that this matters to you, but for more general consumption/clarification):
The changes I advocate on the Palestinian side are entirely for their own benefit, and under their own control. If they did not affect Israeli behavior one iota, they would still be the right and self-beneficial thing to do – and Hamas would implement them if they were rational and their end was to benefit the people living under their governance. The changes in Israeli policy would surely happen (and under those circumstances, they would create even more mutual benefits) but the unilateral actions by Hamas should be done even if that were not the case.
June 2, 2010, 4:45 pmreality check says:
The left in this country has the wrongheaded notion that proportionality has to do with equivalent levels of response (i.e. only equal levels of force).
However, proportionality in war has little to do with equivalent levels of force in kind. Instead, it has to do with necessary level of force required to prevent further aggression.
If it takes an air campaign and ground incursion to silence frequent rocket attacks, then that is still a level a force proportionate to the level of force required to mute those attacks.
The ethic of proportionality does not stem from the notion that war should be fair (war should be as unfair as possible in your own favor so as to make it quick and to limit the level of carnage)… Instead, the ethic of proportionality stems from the notion that war should be necessary.
If Palestinian militants don’t want to get targeted by the most advanced western weaponry, then they shouldn’t resort to firing rudimentary rockets at civilians. By thier actions in the illegitimate name of “freedom fighting,” they make Israeli war on them necessary.
I believe that people ultimately get the government they deserve. The people of Gaza cede claims of innocence when they elect and support a government that advocates the destruction of Israel and the launching of rockets into Israel houses.
When Gazans reject terrorism and violence directed against civilians as a tactic of war, then I might take thier claims of oppression seriously. Until then, its an absurd position. Gazans can have cement and steel…
…as soon as they give up terrorism. The choice is thiers.
June 2, 2010, 4:46 pmBlue says:
Well, if he’s taking his cues from Heller–who just makes up stuff to fit his ideological views–then while he might be able to master IL he doesn’t have the sense to know who to master it from.
June 2, 2010, 4:48 pmyankev says:
Not to mention that whether or not Israel
is irrelevant both to its right to exist (particular when its record is compared to its antagonists’ records, not least of them Britain’s) nor the rightness of its actions in any given instance.
Another frequent canard. If you tell me there is de facto unlawful discrimination against Arabs, I will believe you. This has nothing to do with religious faith, and in fact a religious Jew also faces discrimination from the secular establishment. Most Israelis are secular and many are atheist, and of those more than a few are downright anti-religious. Our London friend is conflating Jewish religion and Jewish ethnicity.
Not that long ago, a British court ruled that a Jewish religious school could lawfully distinguish between members of the faith and non-members for purposes of admission (as UK law guarantees to all faith based schools), but had to use Christian rather than Jewish religious standards in making that determination. Jews in the UK risk physical attack and social ostracism on a level not seen in half a century. Despite incidents here and there, I suspect that Israel’s overall record on civil liberties in both war and peace has nothing to be ashamed of, especially as compared to the record of the UK.
June 2, 2010, 4:55 pmStrict says:
DB: “So I’ll present you the same challenge I presented at the time, which not a single critic was willing to answer: what, in your view, would be a “proportionate” military response by Israel to rockets sent into its territory by Hamas?”
The irony is that DB is unwilling to explain what he means when he accuses HRW of not being “proportionate” in their coverage of Israel/Palestine matters.
As for the proportionality of Israel’s response, I think there is no clear line. Obviously Israel shouldn’t be limited to “eye-for-an-eye” retaliations [it's absurd to say that if Hamas kills 3 Israelis, Israel may kills 3 Gazans but may not kill 4 because that would be "disproportional"], and obviously Israel shouldn’t drop nukes in retaliation for a single casualty in Sderot because that would, for reasons that are hard to articulate but are obvious enough, be disproportional.
However, it is clear that Israel should not target civilians – so when it does, it will get criticized for it.
June 2, 2010, 5:00 pmRPT says:
Actually, Obama’s (alleged lack of) credentials were one of the hot VC topics in 2008; the same for Sotomayor’s in 2009, and just wait until the Kagan hearings start.
June 2, 2010, 5:03 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Among other problems with this sentence, “proportionate” in terms of HRW’s coverage of Israel has basically zero to do with the concept of “proportionality” in international law.
June 2, 2010, 5:12 pmMona says:
As is his way, he has not/is not mastering it from any “who” other than the direct law involved. On ambiguous or contested points of law he might would consult learned others, but would ultimately make his own determination.
June 2, 2010, 5:13 pmShelbyC says:
Is it twue what they say about Obama’s credentials?
June 2, 2010, 5:16 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Wrongheaded impression, or intentional obfuscation? It’s not like it would take a lot of research to discover what it means.
June 2, 2010, 5:19 pmsgi says:
Hmm, Megan McCardle needs to check her sources. That list can not be verified because the Israeli government refuses to publish a list of blockaded items. Frankly, I think they should but perhaps they have a very good reason not to.
http://gisha.org/UserFiles/File/HiddenMessages/ItemsGazaStrip060510.pdf
Can’t be bothered with Andrew Sullivan.
June 2, 2010, 5:20 pmKenneth Brooks says:
I think that it is a sad testament that the people in the flotilla were not armed to the teeth. The exact act that was perpetrated by Israel is why weaponry is required. The fact that they were not armed detracts from their resolve. One need not be a terrorist to use a weapon in defense of one self. It is perfectly acceptable in anglo-american culture to use lethal force against unjustified force that places one’s person in imminent threat of greivous bodily harm and/or death. Moreover, simply because a government chooses to use force is not justification for the use of the force. Any citizen of this planet has the moral, legal and natural right to kill any living being that seeks to kill them. This is the struggle that is life. It is natural law. Even Chief Justice Chase stated that the Southern States have a right to secede by revolution. However, there is one caveat . . . one had better win the revolution.
One must ask the nature of those who seek to allow one to be brutalized by another. Why is it that those who are being brutalized must turn the other cheek? What is it that they are afraid of so as to preclude one from defending one’s person. For me, I am very happy that George Washington was not like Ghandi or Martin Luther King. I am sanguine with the fact that George Washington was a warrior who sought to end oppression by force of arms against a government, which in his time, had the authority over him that was ordained by God almighty.
June 2, 2010, 5:27 pmI am also sanguine with General George S. Patton loved a good fight and knew that there are times in history when men must destroy men and nations destroy nations in this epic struggle we call humanity. At the Chosin Chesty Puller was not seeking humanitarian aid for his troops and destroyed three Chinese divisions in the process. It was good General Puller was armed.
There are people starving in Gaza. The time for peace has long since passed. I say let Turkey and Israel have a go at it. May the better people win. It is a clash of titans, Turkey who ruled the area that is now called Israel and Palestine for nearly 2,000 years. I can think of no other people that have a claim to the land equal to that of the Israelis.
q says:
There was no imminent threat of bodily harm or death (look at the other five flotillas for evidence of how “imminent” the threat was). They may have been carrying pistols, but they were not brandished. Moreover, it is not perfectly acceptable in our culture to continually beat one’s assailant once it is clear they are incapacitated. Nor throw one’s assailant off a bridge. Nor take the assailant’s only lethal weapon and empty the entire clip at him.
June 2, 2010, 5:36 pmStrict says:
Kenneth, that was epic.
But really, Turkey would much rather continue buying state-of- the-art weaponry [UAVs, fighter jets, etc.] from Israel and working on high tech projects and infrastructure with Israel than fight Israel, which has a nuclear arsenal and very fierce conventional defenses. Israel will not be breached by a Turkish horde.
Turkey is trying to get into the EU. Getting into a massive war would completely derails its stab at membership.
June 2, 2010, 5:42 pmyankev says:
Have you no shame?
June 2, 2010, 5:47 pmyankev says:
I was not aware that any of those people posted comments here during those discussions.
June 2, 2010, 5:49 pmAndrew J. Lazarus says:
I’m not an expert on maritime law, but I have no doubt the British Mandatory authority was fully lawful in stopping the Exodus. How’d that work out, anyway? The Israelis committed (yet another) short-sighted stupid act, and like the various house demolitions, etc., doing some crazy dance to establish their legality bespeaks a complete lack of vision of any sensible resolution.
June 2, 2010, 5:50 pmStrict says:
DB: ““proportionate” in terms of HRW’s coverage of Israel has basically zero to do with the concept of “proportionality” in international law.”
That might be true – but in both cases, no one can clearly state what is proportional or proportionate and what is not. You’ve had trouble explaining what it is about HRW’s coverage that is “disproportionate,” and others have had trouble explaining why Israel’s actions in Gaza were disproportionate.
When you’ve tried to bring up clear examples [HRW only issued two reports on Kashmir, and more on Israel, thus its coverage of Israel is disproportionate; HRW failed to issue a report on post-election violence in Iran, yet it issued a report on Israel, thus its coverage of Israel is disproportionate], the examples are either factually wrong or the conclusions drawn from them still turn on a vague and undefined meaning of “proportionate.”
Proportionality just isn’t a clear concept, which probably makes it a bad legal doctrine. I guess it’s a “you know it when you see it” type of thing, so people with anti-Israel bias may be more likely to see disproportionality in Israel’s conduct than those who are not anti-Israel.
June 2, 2010, 5:50 pmleo marvin says:
Are you angry at anyone over this incident?
June 2, 2010, 5:52 pmStrict says:
Yankev: “Have you no shame?”
What do you mean?
The argument that Israel’s actions in Gaza were “disproportionate” is based on the facts that Israel caused more damage to Gaza than Gaza did to Israel, not based on the idea that Israel could or should have done something different or less intense. As DB has pointed out, it’s very hard for anyone to say what Israel could or should have done differently. The only suggestions are nitpicking [it should have used Bomb Type A instead of Bomb Type B, it should have been even more careful to avoid civilian casualties, etc] and don’t really get to the heart of the matter. And DB has also pointed out that an international law doctrine which requires casualty counts on both sides to be equal is absurd.
June 2, 2010, 5:56 pmleo marvin says:
Yes. Also, for Mona’s benefit (since she apparently has GG’s ear), I wish, especially when he’s making arguments I agree with, that GG would be less of a dick about impugning the motives of people who see things differently.
I can’t imagine anyone thinking GG is anything but a true believer, but query which does more harm, political expediency or ideological certainty.
June 2, 2010, 5:56 pmyankev says:
As illustrated by all the people who were killed on the other boats. And all the people who were killed on this boat who did not resist. Yep, Israel just needed a few more organs to trade and wanted some gentile blood to store away for next year’s matzah baking.
This is the struggle that is life.
One must ask what brutalization was suffered by the protesters who did not attack armed troops. One must also ask whether people who set sail to chants commemorating a 7th century massacre of Jews by Muslims and chanting “Jihad or death” are really worried about protecting themselves from brutalization or whether they have some other goal in mind.
June 2, 2010, 6:00 pmEH says:
I’m pretty sure that strategy would look worse than their current one, and besides, why hand the Palestinians that kind of golden propaganda opportunity? In fact, if Israel did start starving the P’s, that could only work in the P’s benefit, so why are you suggest hurting Israel in that way?
June 2, 2010, 6:00 pmyankev says:
In the same sense that Gone With the Wind, Triumph of the Will, Hans Westmaror Birth of a Nation were epic — sweeping in scope, and only coincidentally tied to historic fact, distorting it freely in order to defend the morally indefensible.
June 2, 2010, 6:05 pmArthur Kirkland says:
Unless one believes Israel is capable of surviving without the United States’ protection, turning Israel into a right-left issue in American politics seems a handy way to hurt Israel.
Of course, pushing Israel toward belligerence and isolation seems counterproductive, too, but some people appear to be pushing with both arms.
From whom has Israel more to fear, its enemies or its friends?
June 2, 2010, 6:12 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Whatever, others focus a lot on exactly how many reports HRW has issued vis a vis Israel compared to other countries. I’d rather focus on the facts that it’s staffed by longstanding anti-Israel activists, who lie and distort the record to advance their agenda, and that you can’t trust anything they say about Israel regardless of the volume of it. The fact that they issue more reports on Israel than, say, Iran, is interesting, but it’s not the heart of the problem, as one can at least imagine HRW giving “disporportionate” attention to Israel, but the content of that attention being fair-minded.
June 2, 2010, 6:12 pmStrict says:
Yankev,
Yup, epic like that, and completely insane.
June 2, 2010, 6:15 pmyankev says:
I was referring to the silly charge that Prof. Bernstein has not explained his objections to HRW’s work on Israel.
There is lawful and there is moral. No one argued that the British acted unlawfully. I’m glad you see no difference between a blockade to keep Jewish refugees out of the Jewish homeland in order to send them back to DP camps in Europe so as not to offend genocidal Arabs of the Muslim Brotherhood, and another blockade to keep genocidal Arabs of Hamas from getting arms and military equipment to use for their avowed purpose of murdering Jewish civilians and putting an end to the Jewish state. Forgive me if I do not agree.
June 2, 2010, 6:16 pmyankev says:
And sad to say, both J Street and elements in the Democtatic Party have been doing exactly that, going back to at least the 2008 campaign when Jewish leadership in the Democratic Party demanded that Sarah Palin not be allowed to speak at or even attend an anti-Iran protest, even though vice presidential candidate Clinton would be speaking. President Obama has continued the trend, not only in his treatment of PM Netanyahu, his reaction to Ramat Shlomo and his non-reaction to PA glorification of terrorists, but also by allowing his mouthpieces to use “Likud” and “AIPAC” as cuss words to characterize anyone who disagrees with his naive prescriptions, and to brand them as disloyal Americans as was done to Dennis Ross.
June 2, 2010, 6:22 pmyankev says:
As you have made admirably clear on many occassions, but there are those who would like to pretend otherwise, even though they know better.
June 2, 2010, 6:24 pmleo marvin says:
As for the “plausible deniability” theory, when your argument relies on subterfuge for which there’s no evidence outside your accusation, you’re not arguing any more, you’re just fighting. My working assumption is that things are as they appear. Paintball guns mean the Israeli commanders hoped and believed deadly force wouldn’t be necessary. Sidearems mean they were prepared to defend themselves with deadly force, just in case.
My question is, what scenario did they envision where paintball guns would be both necessary and effective? How could they not anticipate that if there was going to be resistance, it would happen when the troops were most outnumbered and vulnerable? And of course, what led them to choose this method of interdiction over the alternatives (e.g., towing)?
June 2, 2010, 6:27 pmStrict says:
“I was referring to the silly charge that Prof. Bernstein has not explained his objections to HRW’s work on Israel.”
I made no such charge.
DB has made several objections to HRW’s work on Israel.
1. HRW’s employees are personally biased against Israel. DB did a good job “outing” these people.
2. HRW’s reports on Israel in some places lack some indicia of reliability/credibility. DB has given good details here as well.
3. HRW disproportionately focuses on Israel. DB has failed to prove this or even explain what a “disproportionate” focus even is. What are the metrics here??
June 2, 2010, 6:27 pmOrenWithAnE says:
While we are at it, can we make this a rule for everyone?
June 2, 2010, 6:28 pmRPT says:
Not here anyway. One can imagine where we would be if McCain & Palin were in charge…..
June 2, 2010, 6:43 pmRPT says:
One never knows!
June 2, 2010, 6:49 pmJKB says:
Except that they were a merchant vessel flying the flag of a neutral party that attempted to breach a blockade in long established exclusion zone in an notified area of hostilities. As such, they were subject to capture. Even if not in breach of the blockade, their attempt to enter the zone of hostilities allows them to be stopped and searched by the hostile parties. BTW, your idea of self defense would not meet the standard and would get you a nice prison term for murder.
Also, “Any citizen of this planet has the moral, legal and natural right to kill any living being that seeks to kill them.” – You obviously do not read the British papers about self defense in Britain.
People are starving in Gaza? Contact the International Red Cross. They’ll collect these individuals, unless barred by Hamas, and transport them to an Israeli hospital for treatment. Don’t wait, call tonight.
Ruled Palestine for 2000 years? Are you forgetting the Roman Empire?
June 2, 2010, 6:59 pmcelticdragonchick says:
All fine and good, but when do they get any of their confiscated property back? Their orchards? Ability to work? Ability to move with any modicum of freedom?
If the Israelis want to treat all Arabs…both Muslim and Christian… as terrorists, then they should not be surprised to find that is what they will get. The Israeli interpretation of Arab relations becomes self fulfilling.
Also, your chortling over disproportionate force studiously avoids the reality of the body count, which is utterly and overwhelmingly Arab, much of that women and children.
Phosphorus artillery shells fired into dense urban city blocks?? Christ!
Defenders of this kind of thing sound like the sort who would excuse police officers massacring a family of five after one of the parents resists arrest.
I used to be an unapologetic Israel supporter, but I will not make excuses for the body counts they rack up will trying to play themselves as the victims. It was far more believable back in the 90′s when Hamas was blowing up buses and Pizzarias every night, but now the IDF seems to be trying to match the civilian death toll themselves.
As far as I am concerned:
A pox on all their houses.
Hamas, Fatah and the Israeli government can all rot in hell.
June 2, 2010, 7:48 pmArthur Kirkland says:
With friends like this, Israel will not need to worry about friends nor enemies.
June 2, 2010, 8:16 pmyankev says:
When do the Jews forced out of Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Mandatory Palestine, Lebanon, Morocco, Libya etc. get their confiscated property back? As to right to work and to move outside Gaza, which came first, the terrorism or the blockade? In other words, when they decide to live in peace without claiming the Allah-given right to kill Jews for being non-Muslims or to rule over Jews as Dhimmi.
They don’t. Besides, Christian Arabs are becoming increasingly irrelevant; the Muslims keep murdering them or driving them out, just as they did with the Jews. The safest place for an Arab Christian in today’s middle east is Israel.
Any objective studies have shown that the percentage of casualties who are women and children and non-combatants is significantly higher among Israelis than among Arabs. Arab women and children have a much higher chance of being killed by another Arab than by an Israeli. Of those who are killed by Israelis, many were unfortunate enough to have become human shields used by other Arabs. Even then, Israel has aborted missiles aimed at known terrorist positions if too many women or children are in the zone of harm; Israel’s definition of “too many” is less than ten percent of the US and UK’s standard. A civilian has a much greater chance of being a collateral death in a raid by the US or the UK than by Israel.
Sorry, you are repeating a proven lie. Odd how no one has come forward with the unique burns caused by exposure to white phosphorus.
June 2, 2010, 8:45 pmyankev says:
Yes, some of us tried to point that out during the campaign.
June 2, 2010, 8:46 pmLitigator London says:
I am sorry to have misnamed you in the post to which you replied. Sloppy of me. However, your diatribe in response displays a sad lack of comprehension.
My problem is not with the fact of Israel’s existence as a state, but with the manner in which it came into existence, the injustice thereby done to the Arab inhabitants of Mandate Palestine, the continuing violations by Israel of internationally accepted human rights norms and the impact these violations have on international peace and security and on terrorism.
Obviously, my stance on these matters will not be welcomed by many of Jewish faith or ethnicity, or by the “rapture ready”, or by the “Israel right or wrong” mob, or by those who have prejudices against Arab “ragheads” or who believe that all Muslims are terrorists or otherwise inferior beings. But it was right that I should start by disclosing my position. Honesty demanded that I do so.
I am comforted that within Israel a not insignificant thoughtful minority share my views and by the fact that here in London we Muslims and our Jewish neighbours and brothers in the practice of law manage to find more common ground on human rights issues than appears to be the case in the USA.
It can only be with regret that I have to say that people who take your intemperate approach to those you disagree with do risk giving some validity to the prejudice embodied in the couplet that once did the rounds: “How odd of God, to choose the Jews” which as you may recollect was deliciously capped by the late Leo Rosten with “Not odd of God, Goyim annoy ‘im
June 2, 2010, 9:20 pmcelticdragon says:
Photographic evidence has emerged that proves that Israel has been using controversial white phosphorus shells during its offensive in Gaza, despite official denials by the Israel Defence Forces.
There is also evidence that the rounds have injured Palestinian civilians, causing severe burns. The use of white phosphorus against civilians is prohibited under international law.
The Times has identified stockpiles of white phosphorus (WP) shells from high-resolution images taken of Israel Defence Forces (IDF) artillery units on the Israeli-Gaza border this week. The pale blue 155mm rounds are clearly marked with the designation M825A1, an American-made WP munition. The shell is an improved version with a more limited dispersion of the phosphorus, which ignites on contact with oxygen, and is being used by the Israeli gunners to create a smoke screen on the ground.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5470047.ece
Oh, never mind. The Times must be a seecrit mooslim terrorist luvin’ propaganda rag dontchaknow.
June 2, 2010, 9:22 pmcelticdragon says:
I would be delighted to see them return any confiscated property to rightful Jewish owners. However, if we are going to measure ours and our allies behavior by how poorly others behave, then there is no reason why we should not massacre civilians and firebomb population centers if others do it…just as long as we don’t do it quite as much, right?
That is your moral failure, not mine.
June 2, 2010, 9:27 pmMona says:
Well, he seldom speculates as to motives, but will sometimes do so as to intent. His rhetoric can indeed drip acid, but that’s one of the things I like — he is a passionate person, and it shows.
June 2, 2010, 9:35 pmDavid Bernstein says:
So, in rank order, how much does the continuing violation of human rights norms by the following nations/ruling bodies bother you: Hamas-ruled Gaza; Israel; Iran; Saudi Arabia; Kuwait; Turkey; Syria?
The relevant question was this: you said you agreed with Greenwald that “operation case lead” was “disproportionate” under international law. I asked you what would have been proportionate. You did answer, though your answer suggested that almost nothing would have satisfied you. But you prefaced your answer with a lengthy discussion of your views regarding Israel’s founding etc., which have absolutely nothing to do with whether Operation Case Lead was “proportionate” under international law. But it was revealing for another reason; it shows that many times when people like yourself criticize Israel for violating international law, what you really mean is that you think that the very existence of Israel is an injustice, therefore any casualties caused by Israel in defending itself are unjust. You have every right to take that position, you just shouldn’t disguise it as concern for international law. I agree with you: if Israel is a completely illegitimate state, and Hamas is the legitimate ruler of Palestine/Israel, Israel has no moral right to defend itself regardless of what international law says. But again, that’s not an international law position, though it is your personal view, and, I think, Greenwald’s.
By the way, how badly do you feel about the 800K or so Jews from Arab countries who were displaced by the founding of Israel? Funny how many people who feel guilty about the displaced Arabs have nothing to say about the displaced Jews.
June 2, 2010, 10:15 pmc-/d+ says:
good to know what you think israel’s human rights exemplars and comparisons are.
June 2, 2010, 11:11 pmreality check says:
So we’re now playing the ancestor tit-for-tat game. Curious – from whom did the Palestinians acquire Palestine? Or have they been in Palestine in perpetuity from the dawn of history until 1947, when the Jews took it from them? (“Palestinian” in the nationalistic construct as ethnically, Palestinians and Jews share common ancestors). We could go round and round about who begat whom, and which ancestor of yours wronged a more recent ancestor of mine – but that wouldn’t solve anything.
For the purposes of this charade, I’m confident that the historical record will show that Jews were displaced from what we know of today as Israel, and that they had occupied the region for a very long time beforehand.
I’m also certain that alleged wrongs committed by one party in 1947 do not excuse the ancestors of said wronged party to intentionally target civilians in the present as a way of compensation and resolution to ancestoral grievances. Even if, for argument’s sake, you concede that Arabs were wronged in the 1940s, that does not excuse war crimes today.
The body count is almost irrelevant here. Civilian deaths caused by legitimate IDF action are an unfortunate byproduct of the conduct of war. IDF leaders wince at civilian casualties, if not for the human toll, then at least for the PR victory it will give to thier enemies.
To the contrary, Hamas leaders rejoice at each and every Israeli civilian death. Each death is the result of an intentional targeting of civilians and a byproduct of an illegal campaign full of war crimes.
The moral question couldn’t be answered any more clearly. IDF military action is unfortunate. Palestinian terrorist action is abhorrent.
June 2, 2010, 11:39 pmLitigator London says:
Saudi Arabia is by far the worst and the regime is hypocritical to boot. Iran was progressing quite well until the oil interests persuaded the USA/UK to interfere with the Mossadeq government (Iraq had a similar experience). Since then matters went downhill in both countries. Kuwait is superficially better and progressing, so is Syria. Gaza is a shambles as one might expect.
Turkey is doing much better since the AKP came to power. Things have actually got to the stage where the numbers of human rights cases coming before the ECHR are declining. It remains to be seen if the coming reforms can keep the army out of politics and progress the Kurdish reconciliation. I am, of course, looking forward to the day when I can cross over the river at Silopi from Iraqi Kurdistan and see the EU stars at passport control.
Israel within its original borders used to be something of a model but given the high level of education of the population and their origins as a people themselves persecuted, it jolly well ought to be held to a much higher standard than any of the other countries listed and unfortunately ever since it settled into long term occupation mode, it has slid back considerably in almost every respect. Not assisted by some of the more obnoxious immigration from NYC or by the connections between likudniks and neocons.
I do have an interest in international law issues. Professionally I spent about 20 years in multi jurisdictional litigation much of which was related to oil and gas. That’s why I have been to all the countries you mention except Israel and Gaza on a fairly regular basis. One of my teachers on a course I once took was Henry Cattan, a Palestinian who took his Licence en Droit in Paris and his LLM in England and was called to the bar by the Middle Temple. He was a former member of the Palestine Bar Association and tutor at the Jerusalem Law School. He wrote a number of useful works on the law and politics of oil concessions in the Middle East and North Africa.
But he also wrote a work entitled “Palestine and International Law” in 1973 which is still on the shelf in my library. You may find it relatively easy to get hold of in the USA since the Foreword was written from the Law Centre at George Washington University by one W.T Mallison Jr then Professor of Law and Director of the International Law Program at that institution. Professor Mallison has also published on Palestine international law issues. Both consider that Israel is an illegitimate state in international law.
So I am afraid you ought not to be quite as dogmatic as you are on the international law position – not that I necessarily wholly agree with the positions of either of these two academics.
On displacement – since my forebears along with many Sephardi Jews were displaced from Muslim Andalusia at the time of the Spanish Reconquista and we ended up in the UK, I feel some sympathy for all displaced persons and refugees. That is why I made reference to the Lessing ACJ proposals for a secular state in Palestine and the US WASP opposition to the immigration proposals for European DP’s – essentially Holocaust survivors. In relation to the displaced Palestinian Arabs, I feel strongly that the neighbouring Arab states behaved very badly.
Since I was born in 1944, I went to school with some Iraqi Jews who came to London in the 1950′s and since the school was Christian, we (the Muslims and the Jews) had the opportunity to do things together while the bulk of the school was at prayer from which we were dispensed. On one of the other threads you began I had something to say to you about the destruction of the Iraqi Jewish Community and the fact that the persecution was a direct consequence of the partition of Palestine and the creation of the State of Israel. That is one of the reasons why I wold have preferred a secular one-state solution to an eventual two state solution – although the disparity in relative birthrates may one day alleviate the difficulty.
June 3, 2010, 1:15 amMBSS says:
But it was revealing for another reason; it shows that many times when people like yourself criticize Israel for violating international law, what you really mean is that you think that the very existence of Israel is an injustice, therefore any casualties caused by Israel in defending itself are unjust.
DB, when people criticize israel for violating international law i would suspect the motive is anger over israel violating international law. if they happen to think that the existence of is israel is an injustice then they say so, as i do.
this is lazy work on your part. it’s like the knee-jerk “antisemitism” slur anytime there is a legitimate criticism of israel.
all the hemming, hawing, sophistry and spin and the facts still remain:
IDF casualties 0
pro-palestinians casualties 10-20
what is proportional?
June 3, 2010, 1:26 amLitigator London says:
This Israeli web site gives statistics for the relative casualties B’Tselem – Statistics 2000 – 2008.
If I understand the position correctly, the vessels were on the high seas (in international waters) when the interception and boarding took place. I understand they were flying the Turkish flag. Therefore, for the purposes of criminal jurisdiction, the deaths of the passengers took place within the jurisdiction of the Turkish courts and the Turkish state as the flag state has the right and arguably the duty to hold an investigation into how the deaths came about.
I sincerely hope the appropriate Turkish public prosecutor and examining magistrate have been tasked with opening an investigation and that the relatives of the deceased have constituted themselves civil parties with a view to obtaining some measure of reparation by way of damages.
It should not be impossible eventually to identify the individuals. “I was only obeying orders” may not be a defence to criminal and civil liability for an act committed with the jurisdiction of another state.
June 3, 2010, 3:30 amAlexia says:
Ya think?
June 3, 2010, 7:41 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
Really? Is this that complicated a concept to you? Look up the word “partisan.” It does not mean “ideologue.”
A partisan hack is one who attacks/defends people or positions based on the party they belong to. That most emphatically does not describe Greenwald. He’s as hard on Democrats as Republicans. He’s often nutty, but he’s consistent.
June 3, 2010, 8:39 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
The problem is that this is pretty much factually wrong in every respect. Truman (and “others”) had nothing to do with anything; Israel was founded the same way every other country in the world was founded: by its founders successfully carving out and defending a piece of land. Truman and others merely recognized that success after it was a fait accompli.
Moreover, any hope of there being a “Jewish home” rather than a Jewish state in Palestine was gone long before 1945. The Arab inhabitants rejected that. Violently.
June 3, 2010, 8:42 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
The use of any weapon “against civilians” is prohibited. The use of weapons in battle, which incidentally injure civilians, is not, however.
June 3, 2010, 10:34 amyankev says:
Given the rest of your post, there is a third possibility — they haven’t the slightest idea what international law is. If higher body count is ipso facto a violation of international law, then every victory is by definition a war crime.
And precisely what borders are those? The partition plan borders, which the Arabs rejected and launched a war of extermination instead? The 1949 armistice lines, which no one ever recognized as borders, and which encouraged the Arabs to start the 1967 war?
Its record as a country at war, and even as a country facing frequent terrorist attack, compares favorable with the UK. Of course, the UK was not ‘occupied’ by people with a history of persecution, and so can be held to a lower standard than Israel, nor does it suffer from an influx of obnoxious people from Brooklyn — you know who we mean, loud, pushy, rude people with funny names and big noses.
“Controversial white phosphorus shells” are permitted for illuminating the battlefield and for creating smoke screens — the same use to which Israel put them. There is no controversy that they are permitted for that use, and AFAIK Israel does not deny having used them for that purpose.
There is no credible evidence that Israel has used them as anti-personnel weapons, which is prohibited.
And btw, despite your appeal to the Times’ objectivity and authority, that paper has been known on more than one occassion to print false or distorted stories about Israel, and to suggest the existence of sinister Jewish conspiracies in the UK.
Is this the same B’tselem that offered to provide false itineraries to US students who want to visit Israel to help the ISM provide cover for suicide bombers? (See expose some years back by Lee Kaplan, who infiltrated an ISM orientation at Berkely.)
June 3, 2010, 10:52 amBarb says:
Good work, Yankev!
June 3, 2010, 11:01 amDarrell says:
To Greenwald, and to all partisans/ideologues, the truth is irrelevant, and in fact an impediment.
June 3, 2010, 11:14 amDavid M. Nieporent says:
A better response is, “So what?” What relevance does the statistic have? Again, war is not a game where you try to kill an equal number of people on each side. The U.S. killed many more Germans than Germany killed Americans in WW2. So what?
June 3, 2010, 12:07 pmKenneth Brooks says:
And so you think the acts of George Washington, George S. Patton and Chesty Puller were insane? Yet this is the logical end to this saga, an insanity called war. It is best for combatants to settle this issue, because it is cruel for commandos to take-on women and children, old men and people with little or no training in war. That very act is one of cowardice. Hamas lobbing missles into neighborhoods is a chicken$hit act. Real warriors don a uniform and march into the crucible of conflict that is an ancient process of settling disputes-WAR. I personally am sickened by those who hide behind empty platitudes in furtherance of justification of raping and killing innocent and weak people under specious claims of justification. Isreal wants ariable land-nothing less. The land provided to it in 1948 has insufficient agricultural resources to maintain a viable population. All those who oppose full scale war in the middle east to resolve these issues advocate the slaughter and slow starvation of people who are simply trying to live out their lives. Your motivations are selfish and self serving. To say one side is evil and the other is good is pure folly. There are simply multiple groups with divergent agendas. The only solution to this problem is unrestricted warfare. Once the population in the area gets a strong dose of unrestricted warfare, then all parties will be willing to sit and negotiate a peace. It worked for Europe. It can work for these people as well. Unfortunately, it takes a great deal fo casulties for the leaders to realize that their ideology is idiotic.
June 3, 2010, 12:39 pmKenneth Brooks says:
Also, “Any citizen of this planet has the moral, legal and natural right to kill any living being that seeks to kill them.” — You obviously do not read the British papers about self defense in Britain.
Yeah well it is from Britain, what can you say about that. It is not like they are a culture that Americans look up to. If I remember correctly we kicked their butts twice, saved their butts twice and now they have destroyed 40% of the food supply off our Gulf Coast. They also caused the international banking crisis and punish their subjects for using self defense. In short I simply do not believe that they have shown the proper government acumen to be look upon as a beacon of human self-governing achievement, let along how humans should behave.
June 3, 2010, 12:49 pmyankev says:
Every time Israel has achieved or come close to achieving a military victory,the rest of the world has stepped in to insulate the Arabs from the consequences of defeat, notwithstanding that in each of the conflicts the Arabs were the aggressors and Israel had causus belli.
June 3, 2010, 1:04 pmKenneth Brooks says:
Actually I think that you are viewing the situation throught a filteredlens. The reason the world steps in to prevent Israel from consolidating its victory is that it would upset the English arrangment of the national boundaries in that area. This was to prevent any one country from controlling all of the oil in that region. If we can forget about the calamity that the English caused in the middle east and let the dust settle where it may after the fight then all should be well. Isreal should be cautious, however, about Iran. That is a European country and I don’t think Israel would last one week on a European battle field. It is not like fighting a bunch of guerilla fighters. That is why Israel had the U.S. take out Iraq. No. I believe the only solution is unrestricted warfare. Now with the gulf coast calamity this may be a viable solution, because it is difficult not to look at oil with the same reservations as we regard nuclear power. Without needing to protect the profits of the U.S. oil companies we can pretty much let the middle east go the way it desires.
June 3, 2010, 1:26 pmDavid Bernstein says:
Well, let’s go back to the original issue. According to both Greenwald and London Litigator, there is NO military action that Israel could have taken in late 2008 in response to Gaza rockets that would have been proportionate under international law. But there is NO “international law” doctrine that would justify such a conclusion. So international law is a ruse used to fool rubes who think that any seemingly well-meaning lawyer who uses those magic words (a) knows what he’s talking about; and (b) is being honest.
June 3, 2010, 4:21 pmJoel Rosenberg says:
I’m just going to take that out and admire it. I do wish, though, that he’d saved that comment for two days, what with June 5 almost upon us, and the anniversary of the IDF victory over Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and their supplementary forces from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, the PLO, and Pakistan. (For those keeping score at home, the IDF, at the time, was 50,000 regulars and just over 200,000 reservists; the Arab forces had double the manpower, three times the tanks, and three times the combat aircraft. At the beginning, that is.)
June 3, 2010, 5:19 pmMBSS says:
Given the rest of your post, there is a third possibility — they haven’t the slightest idea what international law is. If higher body count is ipso facto a violation of international law, then every victory is by definition a war crime.
yankev, did i mention anything about international law? i understand the context, but i’m simply asking the professor if 9 dead compared to 0 dead is proportionate to him. i’m not building a legal case against israel, i’ll leave that to others more qualified, i’m building a moral case. obviously israel has overstepped in bounds in an egregious manner once again.
June 3, 2010, 8:26 pmDavid Bernstein says:
The Israeli navy had enough firepower to kill everyone on board. Instead, they apparently withheld fire for some time, only shot to defend themselves, and only killed 9 out of 600. A bungled operation, yes, but the deaths were certainly proportionate to the threat.
June 3, 2010, 8:42 pmReaderY says:
Israel has more enemies than citizens. So if “proportionality” required Israel to kill only as many of the enemy as the enemy managed to successfully kill, it would be quickly annihilated.
It is difficult to imagine a state, particularly a small one, willing to abide by such a rule.
Calling for such a rule doesn’t seem to serve any purpose other than to make it easier to annihilate small states.
June 3, 2010, 11:56 pmEdmund says:
Petep:
Interesting quote at the end. Since you were obviously there, why not answer a much more interesting question: Were the Israelis really shooting at the ships before boarding, as the the passengers are now claiming? And if they weren’t, and the passengers are lying, why don’t the Israelis just release the unedited video, or at least release the portions that refute these claims? And why haven’t you been on television giving your eyewitness account?
Of course, if you weren’t there and are posting comments purporting to be “quotes” from the Israelis offering to distribute the humanitarian items, then who’s the sock puppet here? Unlike yourself, I don’t claim to know what happened. I’d like to know. I have questions based on what I’ve read and seen. You, on the other hand, seem to have reflexively adopted a pro-Israel position and stand ready to denounce anyone who doesn’t do the same regardless of what is known about what the Israelis actually did.
June 4, 2010, 12:26 pmDrasties - Dutch on the World - World on the Dutch says:
[...] or Muslim critics of the raid — to spout the Israeli version without opposition. Israel-centric pundits in America claimed, based on the edited IDF video, that anyone was lying who even reported on the statements of the [...]
June 4, 2010, 11:21 pmtim says:
“1040 has to be pulling our leg. No one is this dumb: “paintballs…can cause pretty serious damage”. What a nancy — someone alert the little kids playing paintball in suburbs everywhere!!!”
Andrew Exum wrote on his blog that the US military use modified carbines that can shoot paintballs for training sessions. He related that being hit by one is very painful and can kill.
June 10, 2010, 10:11 am