(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

[rose_garden.livejournal.com]

All right, I'll take the other side.

Why are they laying siege to Gaza? Well, obviously the answer is that Gaza is launching missiles at Israel. But why are they blocking humanitarian aid?

[eclectic-boy.livejournal.com]

Further, I'm unclear on these "potentially deadly weapons". The story I read suggested that when people came onto their ship from a helicopter, the ship's crew used poles and tools to try to beat them off. It sounds a lot more like defending yourself from boarders using whatever was at hand than "attack[ing] with potentially deadly weapons". Yes, a wrench can be a deadly weapon... but to call it that makes it sound like you want it treated like a gun.

Is the story I heard wrong, and the ship used guns/bayonets/grenades?

[ccommack]

Seizing a cargo ship could have been done 1) in daylight, and 2) within the 12-mile limit, instead of in international waters. The way it was actually done smacks of piracy itself, as opposed to a legitimate use of a state's naval power.

Even if the ships were trying to run a legal blockade (which it's not clear that it is), they have legally done nothing wrong until they cross the 12-mile line. Also, Israel picked the wrong country to antagonize; not only was Turkey formerly one of its own best friends and allies, but seizing Turkish-flagged merchant shipping in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea constitutes sovereign aggression, which (if things escalate) qualifies Turkey to request assistance under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

[arctangent.livejournal.com]

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?

If the Somali "pirates" were attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to illegally occupied territory through an illegal blockade? Yes. People would be complaining. Those people would probably be lambasted as anti-American, terrorist sympathizers, etc., but they'd complain.

[rose_garden.livejournal.com]

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16264970&fsrc=rss



If this is true, it seems pretty cruelly arbitrary.