While I respect Roy Antoun’s willingness to present an unpopular position on the Gaza flotilla clash, I don’t think his position is coherent.
Roy posted footage of the flotilla incident showing activists fighting IDF soldiers “boarding” their boat by hitting them with a metal pole, and throwing a stun grenade and fire bomb. He used this footage to characterize Daniel Drezner and other critics of the Israeli soldiers as “naïve”:
For pundits like Drezner to admit that those on board the vessel attacked first in not-so Christ-like ways and then condemn the Israeli commandos for killing those attacking them is quite naive. In a situation where you are dangling off a helicopter rope and being shot at, it's hard to imagine how any human being would react. Furthermore, when the video explicitly shows how the commandos were repetitively beaten upon entering the vessel, I'm almost certain that anyone in a commando's shoes would want to react violently back to whoever was beating him with a metal object
I see a few problems with this characterization, as well as Roy's broader argument.
First, Roy presents his timeline -- in which the activists deliver the first blow -- as established fact. But this claim, and the edited video footage supporting it, originally came from IDF officials, who are about as neutral in this matter as Al Capone at a bootlegging trial. Moreover, Israel isn't coming across as a government without guilt (oxymoron, I know) by forcibly banning all foreign journalists from talking to eye-witnesses on the scene. Further, their account is heavily disputed by other sources.
Second, even if we take Roy’s sources at their word — a privilege no libertarian should ever extend to any government — we must still condemn these soldiers for invading the non-resisting boats and incarcerating hundreds of innocent activists. And the "boarding" of the battle boat was an aggressive invasion and a violation of property rights if I ever saw one. To those declaiming that the “law is the law” and the troopers were merely upholding it, I respond with St. Augustine’s pronouncement that “an unjust law is no law at all.” By delivering food to the people of Gaza, the activists were defying the crazy and crippling blockade Israel has imposed on these people. We should applaud anyone who opposes such monstrous, anti-market “laws.”
Third, even if we swallow every word Israeli officials say about the lead-up to the attack, the acts of barbarism committed by the IDF soldiers cannot be excused. While Roy may believe that the violence employed by the activists was disproportionate, I don’t think he can argue that it wasn’t defensive, at least under libertarian moral theory. He urges us to empathize with the plight of fully armed soldiers “dangling off a helicopter rope and being shot at,” but glosses over any fear-inducing shock the activists (you know, the people acting defensively) felt at the sight of these soldiers invading their ship. To have been shocked by the boarding would be inexcusably “naive” because “the blockade has been stationed there for years and vessel inspection has been standard operating procedure,” Roy argues. Most glaringly, he overlooks the possibility that many of the slaughtered were unarmed civilians.
I emphatically agree with the underlying philosophy of non-interventionism that, at least in part, motivated Roy’s post. The US and all governments can only make matters worse by intervening in the matter. But private Americans citizens should reject the notion that our media is “blowing things out of proportion.” Noninterventionists especially should prove the moniker of “isolationism” is falsely attached to us by condemning this atrocity.
Finally, know that I wouldn’t criticize Roy if I didn’t think he was a superb blogger, and able to handle criticism.
I think Roy was trying to say(not putting words in his mouth) was that these protesters knew the background of the situation. Israel has a past of boarding ships. There is a difference between protesting law by attacking and civil disobedience. These soldiers were being hit the moment they boarded. Sure there was a massive property rights violation on the part of the Israeli government, but look at it this way-- trained soldiers with semi-automatic weapons vs. your paintball guns and whatever else... They didn't exactly pick the right fight.
Did they deserve to die? No. The protesters were beating the bloody hell out of the Israeli soldiers. Those soldiers did what they were trained to do. The Israelis don't exactly have a history of being fair when it comes to dealing with violence. Point is that those laws need to stop in the first place. Thinking violence will work in any manner wont get them anywhere toward the goal of Gaza freedom. MLK people!!!
I do condemn the act of violence. Never a good idea.
Matt, I'm not saying what happened was prudent. All I'm saying is that it should have been expected. That's why my piece was titled, "How could you not see this coming?"
We can argue over the "sources" day-in and day-out. Maybe mine had an Israeli twist and maybe yours have a Palestinian twist. All news has a twist. The point is, it happened and you'd be naive to think that Israel would have just let them go through. Any student of history would understand that no state operates in that Liberal fashion. When a state feels threatened, it reacts. And when an Israeli soldier feels threatened, he reacts. It's human nature, not some kind of political move. Both sides are fighting for survival.
As libertarians we should not "condemn" anyone considering, Matt, that this is entirely none of our business. What I did condemn was the reaction to the incident, which was naive and "oh-so humanitarian." I also did say that if the actors of this scenario were swapped, I would have written the same piece. People feel threatened, they react. It should be expected- it doesn't mean that we in the U.S. should react the same way.
Who cares how the activists responded: the Israelis boarded ships in international waters!
States have been "violating international waters" for decades. This is totally irrelevant; states will operate as they please whenever it satisfies their interests. It is Western intervention that's driving the conflict further into a pool of disaster. Palestinians and Israelis will figure it out on their own. They don't need a do-nothing U.N. or money from Uncle Sam. The world is a rotten place and we need to recognize it as such or else become subject to its distasteful ways. And the best way to live in this world is not to intervene.
I agree with Ivan Eland http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2010/06/01/israeli-attack-may-have-a-s...
And the world is a rotten place when its the most peaceful period in the history of the world with the least amount of armed conflicts, no great power wars, more free trade, democracy, and states upholding civil liberties than any other moment in history (ok, maybe 2006-2007)? You should read The Improving State of the World by the Cato Institute.
The vast majority of the time states respect international waters and international norms which are established in international society, even though no world government can enforce them, to at least lay down the rules of dealing with each other through voluntary treaties agreed to - by choice - by the nations of the world. There is a lot of literature on the self-enforcing nature of such norms, even if they can and are violated often, and how the do have significant impact in restraining their violation in at least some cases. And just because the norm can be violated does not mean it can (most believers in the natural law would note that aggression is morally wrong even though one can do it). Israel voluntarily signed on to international legal norms via the UN Charter and other conventions (which it doesn't have to sign on to - it didn't sign on to the Nucler Non-Proliferation Treaty for instance, the NPT) and hence it is not irrelevent to point out that Israel is violating the international law it signed, freedom of contract applies to the international arena as well, and its right to point out the immorality of this action.
Read Ludwig von Mises on (classical) liberalism and peace at the Mises Institute here: . he notes that not democracy but free trade and constitutional governments make for a more peaceful world (of course not world peace). We are currently according to all empirical assessments of data at the most peaceful period in the entire history of the world with the least amount of armed conflicts and no wars between the great powers. Power and misperceptions do play a large role in international politics, but we are also at our most free period in world history both economically speaking and politically speaking - according to both Freedom House and the Cato Institute - and free trade continues to spread. Nations indebted to other nations don't go to war with them. Read Cato Institute's great policy brief on free trade and peace by Daniel Griswald: here Also see the great 19th century classical liberal economist Richard Cobden: here
While most people take a Hobbesian view of anarchy in popular discourse, classical liberals (and, today's libertarians) take either a markedly ambivelent or a optimistic view. Although both reject anarchy, they both see societies without government as impetus for coming together to resolve its problems and establish norms which lead to a successful society as E.H. Carr notes in his seminal bookThe Twenty Years Crisis (Google and get the book!). The difference between a hardcore realist and a liberal (in his time, meaning classical liberal or libertarian) is that the latter believes that anarchy is not necessarily a bad thing and can lead to society (both in the national and international sense) and coming together to solve problems (despite the failure of world government or international law or international institutions). Olstrom just won the Nobel Prize for making this observation. Its interesting that empirical observations of anarchic societies have seen how quickly such societies work to establish some sort of rule of law, government, or way of resolving disputes - although it is indeed true that many societies which had a government and then lose one descend into chaos, it mustn't always be the case.
I think a lot of people can be exaggerated into a power politics paradigm to the point of rejecting all morality, yet this is not the point of (classical) liberalism which affirms the natural law. Even though governments and their leaders have a tendency to act in what they percieve to be their own interests, oftentimes despite their moral or ethical beliefs, its important to reject aggression which natural law classical liberals would argue is the fundamental crime even if it was not codified into international law. When countries engage in unjust war (a concept which is very libertarian, Cato Senior Fellow Doug Bandow recently did a speech on it at the Campaign for Liberty conference, and Congressman Ron Paul has been adamant in stressing its important) its not being naive to call out the injustice. What is naive is when you actually think that countries will not engage in unjust war simply because it is unjust - of course, there is evil on this earth, and many will not care if this is the fact.
Ludwig von Mises' Treatise on how (Classical) Liberalism in international relations leads to more peace didn't link right, here's the link:
LIBERALISM AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PEACE: http://mises.org/liberal/ch3sec3.asp
According to the Israeli Ambassador to the US on Fox News this morning, the Israeli commandos were originally armed only with paintball guns and the Israelis offered to deliver the aid themselves since the "aid" could have very well been contraband.
These "peace activists" seem to be totally unconcerned with peace from the videos I've seen of them yelling "Kill the Jews" and making pleas for martyrdom.
The killing of 10 of these activists certainly seems like a disproportionate reprisal but that is nothing new in the conflict between Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians.
Libertarians shouldn't tell each other how to react (that sentence notwithstanding).
=)
Touché.
hahaha. I have to admit, that was pretty funny.
To address the kernel of snark in your joke, I stay away from "i don't think..." type stuff in post titles because that reads wordy and wussy, not because I think my subjective opinions are any more than subjective opinions. Libertarians are free to make suggestion to others, I'm sure you'd agree.
I do agree with your points above, and I especially agree with using non-milquetoast blog post titles.
Post new comment