(no subject)

[meanfreepath]

Why does Israel have to be put on the defensive internationally after its commandos use limited force in response to being attacked with potentially deadly weapons? Would anyone be complaining if the men and women of the US Navy were to use lethal force to defend themselves in the course of interdicting Somali pirates?

Comments

[uncleamos]

You're arguing the small point and ignoring the big one.

[ccommack]

Thank you.

[meanfreepath.livejournal.com]

Israel had given plenty of warning that the flotilla was in hostile waters and had ordered it to divert to Ashdod, which the Mavi Marmara had refused to do. Would any reasonable person expect it to sail right up to the 12-mile line and then turn around? The alternative would have been for the Israelis to wait for the ship to come within an arbitrary line and lose a potential tactical advantage.

More fundamentally, I would question whether the twelve-mile territorial waters limit is really relevant here, in the context of a blockade and a war/police action. In Vietnam, we certainly mined and blockaded harbors such as Haiphong.

[arctangent.livejournal.com]

"We're at war". "We're at war". "We're at war". Same goddamn litany that can be used to justify anything.

Look, if Israel really wants to be at war with the whole damn world, Israel will eventually get its wish -- as long as they keep pushing -- and the results will probably not bode well for Israel.

Their current strategy of treating some of the most starving and desperate people in the world as incredibly deadly hostile combatants has certainly borne rich fruit for them over the years. If they lump every outsider who takes umbrage at this assessment of the situation as also being hostile combatants the Levant is likely to get even more fun to live in soon.