Imagine, if you will, that along the Cote d'Azure of France some goodly portion of the Arab population of France -- perhaps rightly inflamed by the secular state's banning of the burkha -- has been running an enclave that includes Cannes. These French Palestinians, once citizens of France, have refused participation in the central (Israeli) government. They and metropolitan France have been at intermittent war for some years, especially since elections on the Enclave brought a more radically Islamic government to power. You may, and should, assume that there are rights and wrongs on both sides, and that the blockaded Enclave is suffering as a result of a French blockade.
Now imagine that five ships are organized to create a propaganda coup by friendly Islamic powers, not to speak of various do-goodies, and that these ships should -- despite endless warnings and alternative offers -- head straight for Cannes and are headed off by French troops (the famous paras) and in the resultant melee, ten allied Muslim men (mostly Turks) should be killed. Would France be condemned?
The parallel is fairly consistent with reality. I know of no tenet of international law that proscribes a sovereign state's defense of its own integrity. The blockade may be poor policy; it may even by some thought to be immoral, but it is certainly not illegal if a state of war exists between the Enclave and France. I have no doubt that there is suffering on both sides, but what state can tolerate being under constant attack? Who would support France if it failed to protect its own citizens?
Since its founding in 1947, Israel has fought many wars to preserve its integrity. It is a tiny country surrounded by hostile states. The Enclave's international 'support' has come only from other Islamic states: and from the academic Left and other elements of the old pro-Arab elements in the UK Foreign Office. Four ships were boarded safely, one was not. Those on board that fifth ship -- does it matter who fired first, when we know who first resisted the boarding? -- knew what the consequences of resistance would be. And resisted.
In a politically correct world, the ensuing brouhaha is predictable and no less wrong.
Posts
Lahti
7 months ago
I think you dramatically oversimplify the situation, not only from a political but also legal point of view. I'm unsure how a blockade of humanitarian supplies against a largely civilian populace is considered legal.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I cannot fathom your French scenario--of course France would be criticized! Likely by the United States! Israel's intervention occurred in international waters and was not only stupid, but probably illegal.
Frankly, I'm stunned by your defense of Israel. Without condoning the acts of terrorists, Israel is entirely to blame for this situation. You ask what state can tolerate being under constant attack? Israel is hit by the occasional rocket attack from some of the poorest regions on the planet--it responds with a fullscale blockade, aerial bombardments, and a tank rush in order to "put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger" (sayeth an Israeli Government Official). Israel is not in any imminent threat of invasion by any major Arab power, and yet it acts with impunity towards what are, at this point, a more unfortunate community of people than the Israelis themselves.
I would hazard the oversimplification that everyone oversimplifies the Israel question. The nagging nihilist sitting on my shoulder reminds me that, que sera sera. There are no "good guys."
ReplyDeleteJust ask Helen Thomas. Or better yet - don't.