Friday, March 29, AD 2024 12:38am

Israel vs. the "Freedom Flotilla"

I’m generally sympathetic to Israel. Despite its faults, it’s one of the most stable and liberal regimes in the region, and many of its critics fail to account for the corrosive effect on the national consciousness of being surrounded by peoples who want them exterminated and routinely take steps (however ineffective) to visit random violence upon them.

However, while it’s easy to understand their seige mentality, this doesn’t mean that this mentality does not at times cause them to go to far and put themselves in the wrong. In this regard, I think Megan McArdle has a pretty good and balanced response to the attack on the “Freedom Flotilla”:

I was all set to be sympathetic to the argument that the commandos who boarded the aid flotilla and killed a bunch of people were reacting to a threat; if you attack soldiers with pipes, you shouldn’t be surprised if someone gets shot. Very clearly, these guys were not the next incarnation of Gandhi; they were on that mission spoiling for a fight.

But then I realized that the ships were in international waters, and had every right to attack armed men attempting to board their ship. It was not precisely bright, mind you–unless you’re looking to die for a cause. But Israel had no right to be there. I think their establishment has gotten a little too caught up in the romance of illicit raids tacitly greenlighted by the US. Suddenly every operation is Entebbe.

I mean, in the case of the Black September folks, my basic sympathies are with the Israelis. And I’m fairly ok with bombing the incipient nuclear capacity of a near neighbor with a death with for your country. But there is just no way to argue that this rises to the level of tracking down the folks who senselessly slaughtered your athletes, or preventing a scary neighbor from getting a nuclear bomb. It’s stopping a ship carrying food and supplies to the hungry. It’s hard to argue that Israel needed to stage this raid in international waters to stop the looming threat of . . . um . . . men with pipes. Rather than, say, wait until the boats entered Israeli-controlled waters in the “exclusion zone” and board them (debatably) legally.

Looking at the statements of the flotilla organizers, it’s pretty clear that they were looking to provoke a fight, and are in fact very much in sympathy with militant organizations like Hamas. They were spoiling for a fight and they’re not nice people. But the Israeli government ended up playing to the narrative through their actions, doing everyone (and peace) a disservice in the process.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
84 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Blackadder
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 11:44am

The Israeli government has said that international law allows the boarding of a vessel which is attempting to circumvent a declared embargo even while the ship is still in international waters. Not being an expert in international law, I can’t say whether that is an accurate statement or not.

Gabriel Austin
Gabriel Austin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:09pm

Is this not yet another effort to see actions by other countries through U.S. eyes? These matters are far more serious than can fit into term paper discussions. How many of those who feel called upon to comment can speak and read Hebrew? Arabic? How many know the day-to-day situation?
It is one of the calamities of our education system – reflected in the “mainstream media” – that survey courses pretend to understand truly complex situations.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:20pm

The Israelis had previously indicated that the flotilla could have docked at any Israeli port. The cargo would have been searched for weapons and other contraband and then sent on to Gaza. Considering that the Palestinian President Abbas recently accused Hamas of smuggling large amounts of arms and ammunition, I think the Israelis have a legitimate concern.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100506/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

DarwinCatholic
DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Donald R. McClarey
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:39pm

I agree the Israelis had a legit concern, and that the Flotilla organizers were clearly trying to create exactly the sort of incident that occurred by refusing to dock at another port or undergo inspection. Anyone portraying this is a “oh, poor Gazans” thing is clearly being a ‘useful idiot’ for a propaganda operation.

However, the main weapon being carried by this flotilla was pretty clearly not arms and ammunition (let’s be honest, Israel can handle Hamas with no problem) but propaganda, and by allowing themselves to be maneuvered into the “attacking aid ship in international waters” situation, Israel seems to have needlessly pointed that weapon at themselves and pulled the trigger.

RR
RR
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:40pm

I’m usually suspicious of Israel. They have a history of disproportionate response. But I had the same reaction as McArdle. It was at least conceivably proportional but for the fact that they were hijacking a civilian ship in international waters.

Morning's Minion
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:49pm

The “declared embargo” alluded to by Blackadder is of course the core issue here, and is a gross violation of the moral law, and most likely a war crime. After all, the Vatican accused the Israelis of turning Gaza into a “big concentration camp”. One could argue that attempting to break this blockade is actually just.

Paul Zummo
Admin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:54pm

One could argue that attempting to break this blockade is actually just.

One could. But one would also be an morally obtuse useful idiot for Islamist terrorists for so declaring.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:56pm

Israel was in a lose-lose situation and I think they made the right choice. Allow convoys free access to Gaza and who knows what interestng devices could turn up in the hands of Hamas, once Israel established the precedent that they would not stop such a convoy.

As to Tony stating that the Vatican accused Israel of turning Gaza into a “big concentration camp”, whoever made that obscene comment, I doubt if it was made with the approval of Pope Benedict. His family lived in fear of real concentration camps for years, and he can distinguish between them and hysterical comments by individuals calling Israelis Nazis out of political bias and latent, and not so latent, anti-semitism.

DarwinCatholic
DarwinCatholic
Reply to  Morning's Minion
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:58pm

MM,

Would you say that there was a moral imperative for the flotilla to insist on going straight to Gaza rather than allowing itself to be searched for weapons? It would seem that there is a distinction between not allowing anything into a region, and trying to control all shipments in so as to avoid the import of arms.

I think Israel probably did itself and the region more harm than good here — but to class the organizers of the convoy as virtuous in this exchange is pretty delusional. Their primary objective was pretty clearly to cause an incident, not to get aid to Gaza (which they could have done just fine without a fuss if they’d allowed themselves to be searched.)

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:59pm

Perhaps MM has a link to the “Concentration Camp” statement.

Blackadder
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 12:59pm

Actually, I’m inclined to agree with MM on this one. The blockaid has always struck me as being morally dubious at best, and things like the flotilla incident make me think that it’s not even a good idea from a practical standpoint.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 1:05pm

Considering that the Hamas government has continually carried out acts of war against Israel, I think Israel had every right, legally and morally, to impose a blockade. The attitude of the Hamas government is amusing on this score. They continually make the most bloodthirsty pronouncements against Israel, allow terrorist acts to continually be launched from Gaza, and then they are shocked, shocked, when the Israelis act as if they are in a state of war with the government of Gaza.

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 1:10pm

I guess the good news is Egypt is opening its border with Gaza for humanitarian aid to flow. Now why has Egypt had a closed border with Gaza? I thought this was just an Israeli problem.

Blackadder
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 1:11pm

Considering that the Hamas government has continually carried out acts of war against Israel, I think Israel had every right, legally and morally, to impose a blockade.

I disagree. Blockaids are problematic because they attack the people instead of the government.

I also don’t agree that Israel is acting like it’s at war with Gaza. If they were, it would be a simple matter for the IDF to just invade and take the place over again. That they have not done so suggests that, in the mind of the Israeli government at least, allowing themselves to be attacked is preferable to the political and tactical consequences that would come from an outright invasion. It seems to be that a similar calculus would apply to the existence of the blockaid.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 1:18pm

Watch the border be closed again just as quickly Phillip. Hamas has strong ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and other revolutionary groups in Egypt, and the Egyptian government hates Hamas almost as much as the Israelis do.

“I disagree. Blockaids are problematic because they attack the people instead of the government.”

Not in this case since the Israelis are only intent on seizing arms and ammunition.

“If they were, it would be a simple matter for the IDF to just invade and take the place over again.”

Been there, done that. The Israelis do not want to run Gaza and neither do the Egyptians whose territory it originally was in 48. Gaza is a hellhole with no natural resources except angry Palestinians. Israel would leave Gaza strictly alone if Gaza had a government that would leave Israel alone. That seems to be beyond the capabilities of the Gazans, so Israel will continue to do what it believes is necessary for its safety whether the rest of the world approves or not.

Blackadder
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 1:35pm

Not in this case since the Israelis are only intent on seizing arms and ammunition.

The blockaid isn’t limited to arms and ammunition.

The Israelis do not want to run Gaza and neither do the Egyptians whose territory it originally was in 48.

Israel doesn’t want to run Gaza because it believes the costs of doing so outweigh the benefits. I believe the same calculus applies to the blockaid itself.

Put it this way: whatever you think about the flotilla incident, it has clearly been a major propaganda victory for the pro-Palestinian forces. Given that, it would be naive to think that they won’t respond by launching more “freedom flotillas” and to force the IDF to either attack them again or let them through. At some point, I suspect that the Israeli government will conclude that the costs of maintaining the blockaid just aren’t worth the benefit (just as they concluded that staying in Lebanon wasn’t worth it, that staying in Gaza wasn’t worth it, etc.) The question is how long it will be before they reach this conclusion.

Morning's Minion
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 1:45pm

Enough with the conseqentialism, Paul – the imposition of an economic blockade that reduces a civilian population to conditions of great deprivation is an intrinsically evil act. I may be an “idiot” by your ideology, and that’s fine, because it is the correct “moral” position.

Read what the Church in Gaza and the rest of the occupied territories are saying. I gave the same advice during the Iraq war – listen to bishop Warduni and other Iraqi clerics who will have a perspective that -surprise, surprise – deviated substantially from the kind of Fox News American triumphalism that was so dominant at the time. In other words, side with the ‘least among us’.

And in fact, there are clear similarities between the leadership of Hamas and Israel – both come with a militarist mindset, both wallow in victimhood, both have engaged in extreme forms of rhetorical violence about cleansing their territory of the other. Both have attacked civilians and defended it. Oh, but one has nuclear weapons and the other has firecrackers.

Morning's Minion
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 1:46pm

A slightly different, but related, topic: http://vox-nova.com/2010/06/01/israel-and-palestinian-christians/

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 1:48pm

“At some point, I suspect that the Israeli government will conclude that the costs of maintaining the blockaid just aren’t worth the benefit (just as they concluded that staying in Lebanon wasn’t worth it, that staying in Gaza wasn’t worth it, etc.) The question is how long it will be before they reach this conclusion.”

Different situations BA. Unlike Lebanon, the Israelis aren’t in Gaza. The Israelis have no place to withdraw from. Additionally, the Israelis have evidence that the blockade has worked as terrorist attacks on Israel from Gaza have plummeted since the blockade was initiated. Between taking over Gaza militarily again, and maintaining the blockade, I know which I would choose if I were an Israeli. Of course if Egypt keeps open their land border with Gaza, which they will not, the entire issue would be rendered moot.

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 2:46pm

So I guess MM doesn’t have an official Vatican statement that Gaza has been turned into a “Concentration Camp.”

Blackadder
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 2:56pm

Phillip,

See here.

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 3:09pm

Actually I was looking for an official statement of the Vatican. We know Cardinals are capable of using the Nazi analogy quite easily from recent immigration discussions.

Morning's Minion
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 3:17pm

At the time, Cardinal Martino was president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace i.e. he was the Vatican official speaking directly in his area of responsibility.

Phillip
Phillip
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 3:38pm

I suspect you realize that not everything a Vatican offical says is an official statement of the Holy See.

But perhaps given that, maybe California can start lobbing missles at Arizona given Cardinal Mahoney’s recent assessments of events there.

Dale Price
Dale Price
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 3:51pm

There is no real way to spin this in Israel’s favor. Yeah, the flotilla is from a Turkish Islamist organization. Yes, it was seeking a confrontation, which the the Israelis gave them–in just about the worst way possible. The AKP government in Turkey is in full freakout mode, which adds to the debacle.

“Own goal” is about the nicest way to put it.

Jay Anderson
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 3:57pm

It wasn’t “the Vatican”, but an extremely culturally tone-deaf and insensitive Cardinal Martino who invoked Godwin’s Law against the descendants of Holocaust victims:

http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2009/01/appalling-level-of-cultural-tone.html

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 4:00pm

Cardinal Martino was a long time victim of hoof in mouth disease.

“But Vatican sources have said Pope Benedict wants his cardinals to keep a lower profile and that Martino had been told by Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to keep the lid on and not be so controversial.”

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/01/09/cardinal-martino-does-it-again/

Morning's Minion
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 4:18pm

Darwin,

You claim that the aid-brigers were seeking to provoke. Perhaps so, but was this unjust? It sounds to me like a classic non-violent resistence strategy. After all, Gandhi’s tactics were designed to provoke a maximal response from the British (which is why I dispute McArdle’s contention that somehow Gandhi would not have approved). He was very shrewd.

I also dispute the fact that the aid would have been let in had they agreed to a search. We will never know the answer to this, and the architects of the blockade saying so does not give me comfort.

Henry Karlson
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 4:26pm

This is the reality of the situation in Gaza. This is from someone intricately connected to the formation and development of Israel, as a friend of Israel. He is himself a Jew.

The idea that “oh, the Cardinal just fell into Godwin’s Law” shows the stupidity of people who think Godwin’s Law means anything. It doesn’t. It is not a logical fallacy to use analogy. Indeed, those who deny analogy are showing a reductionistic, positivistic, anti-Catholic sensibility. Catholic thought is analogical.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 4:34pm

The UN has been feeding and clothing the people of Palestine for about 60+ years. The Gaza strip (I thought) butts up on Egypt. The flotilla (eight little ships are going to feed 1,000,000 people!) could have sailed to Egypt. Or, Egypt won’t let them pass either?

There is no humanitarian catastrophy that requires a flotilla of terrorists to run any (moral or immoral) blockade.

I see and hear a lot of anti-semitism in all the unjust attacks against Israel.

And, I know wherof I speak. Until 9/11, I was one of the worst anti-semites.

These “nonviolent” terrorists are out to detroy Israel as are cathoblog anti-semites calumniously attacking the gallant State of Israel.

Blackadder
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 4:48pm

You claim that the aid-brigers were seeking to provoke. Perhaps so, but was this unjust? It sounds to me like a classic non-violent resistence strategy.

Is beating soldiers with metal pipes also a classic non-violent resistance strategy?

c matt
c matt
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 4:57pm

Your Ghandi analogy would be more convincing if there was no resistance to the boarding (assuming the reports are accurate that there was – at this point, I find it hard to believe anyone in that region).

That said, Dale put it quite accurately – “own goal” indeed. Shaw, really? You see criticism of Israel regarding this incident as unjust?

Morning's Minion
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 5:28pm

As one who abhors violence, I will not condone this reaction. But it certainly falls under the banner of what most Americans consider “legitimate defense”, no?

Foxfier
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 6:47pm

This guy went and looked up the relevant laws.

The ships acted like gun-runners for the other side, so Israel was forced to respond like they might, possibly, be a threat. (Me, I’m shaking my head over having bloody paintball guns.)

As one who abhors violence, I will not condone this reaction. But it certainly falls under the banner of what most Americans consider “legitimate defense”, no?

Nope. You break into my house and the cops pull a gun on you, you don’t have a right to defend yourself, even though your life is in danger.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 6:59pm

“(Me, I’m shaking my head over having bloody paintball guns.)”

Indeed Foxfier. It appears that the Israelis have been infected with some of the unicorn and fairy spice rubbish in regard to the use of force that captivates so much of the West. If the Israelis had gone on heavily armed, I suspect the riot that confronted them may not have happened, and that a much lower body count would have been the result.

Br. Matthew Augustine Miller, OP
Br. Matthew Augustine Miller, OP
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 8:00pm

It seems impossible to make definitive statements about exactly what happened in this raid. The Israelis jammed media and communications on board the vessel, though a satellite feed was able to broadcast some of the event until it was halted by the IDF (at least according to the cameraman who has since been released). Other eyewitnesses claim to have had photographs and video of the events but everyone had their equipment seized. What we do know is that the Israelis boarded the vessel outside of their own exclusionary zone and in the cover of darkness. They have since released their own video and version of the events. However, short of all the available evidence we don’t really know what happened. Based on what we do know, I don’t see how anybody could justify this. Just from a prudential standpoint, it was an idiotic move on Israels part, and they are going to have to face the consequences. They are isolating themselves diplomatically and shifting the worlds attention away from where they need it (on, say, Iran). I happen to suspect that the Israeli actions were probably unjust and illegal, but even from the standpoint of their own self-interest, this action was stupid. Even if your sympathies lie entirely with the Israelis, I cannot see how someone could defend what happened here.

Blackadder
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 8:21pm

As one who abhors violence, I will not condone this reaction. But it certainly falls under the banner of what most Americans consider “legitimate defense”, no?

Whatever one thinks of the actions of the men with clubs, they certainly can’t be considered “a classic non-violent resistence strategy.”

DarwinCatholic
DarwinCatholic
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 8:34pm

It strikes me that this whole series of events underscores the difficulties with the approach to “international law” and avoiding war which has been so prevalent since WW2.

While the idea of keeping weapons shipments out of Gaza, while not going to war with it, is in theory appealing, the fact of the matter is that the means of enforcing a ban on shipping weapons to Gaza have to be so draconian to be effective that people will frequently be outraged by it. And at the end of the day, if Israel isn’t willing to use act-of-war type means to keep away ships ignoring their blockade, then the blockade ceases to have any meaning.

Nonsensical though such a strategy might seem, it would probably make the most sense to take a completely hands-off approach to Gaza, and then, when Hamas does something truly unacceptable, roll in with tanks, flatten things for a bit, and then leave again.

Countries are able to make war pretty effectively, but their ability to enforce peace is tenuous at best.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 9:35pm

Israel and Iraq are the only mideast/Arab countries not suffering under the yoke of Islamo-fascist dicatorship or monarchy/oligarchy/sharia misrule.

Freedom flotilla my eye.

Anti-semitic commmenters seem consistent. They apparently support both abortion (Obama) and Islamofascist tyranny.

tim shipe
Tuesday, June 1, AD 2010 10:11pm

Even though I take for the most part the narrative of Palestinians as primary victims in this whole Israel/Palestine debacle over the years- I do not justify acts of terrorism directed at civilians conducted by Palestinians- I comprehend the rage that is at the root of such actions, but I don’t try to justify them- to comprehend and wish to prevent root causes is not the same as justification or endorsement.

Now, it seems that many of my Catholic friends who take the side that Israel is the principal victim of Palestinians et al- many seem to labor hard at justifying any and every violent action on the part of the Israel establishment ( not saying the author of this entry is doing so)- be it the actions during the First and Second Intifada, the most recent attacks on Lebanon soil, the blockade of Gaza, the attack on Gaza, and this assault on the activist’ boat. None of these actions seem to constitute a moral dilemma for many Israel supporters even though civilians are very often caught up right in the middle things with civilian centers bombed, and civilians, not soldiers, being on board the boats. No matter that the WHO has condemned the embargo of Gaza- to many Israel supporters, all international organizations are rejected to a degree that is to my ear decidedly un-Catholic- if one is taking their cue from the Hierarchy- a prudential judgment to be sure- but so is the fact that I love my wife even if 9 of 10 American Catholic writers express their doubts.

I would only suggest that those Israel defenders who also like to leap at the notion that those who generally take the Palestinian “victims of the Victims” line, are anti-semites who just hate Israel and maybe hate America as well.. Well I would only suggest that those out there who are taking this line, please look long and hard in the mirror and ask yourself if you may hold some deep-seated anti-Arab, anti-Persian prejudices that cause you to get angry at the drop of a hat- and maybe the very idea of Muslims causes a thick hatred in your heart, and maybe the reality of some of these types of persons- civilian or not- getting wacked by Israeli high or low command- actually makes you feel pretty, pretty good. Maybe it is an unspoken aspect of anti-Semitism that now holds aloft the Victims of the Holocaust but also feels no sympathy for low rent Arabs, Palestinians, or any of the rest of those who don’t feel blessed by the advent of secular Zionism or Christian Zionist Fundamentalist prophesies.

I’m just saying that in my prudential judgment and as the result of my own eye-ball tour of Israel-Palestine years ago- it seems pretty obvious that the Palestinians are the little guys with very few friends who have any real clout in the major power centers- or at least are willing to use that clout- the Israeli side of the fence seems to be a yard full of European living standards, American-style military hardware and Intelligence operatives, and even a couple of hundred of nukes hidden away- and to think that Hamas and a 4th world economy in Gaza with homemade rockets are really providing an existential threat to Jews akin to Hitler’s Germany?? I just don’t make those kind of difficult leaps in my thinking. And so it goes for those of us more connected to brother and sister Catholics actually living in the Holy Land, and who take in the Hierarchical view from the Latin Patriarch with lots of interest and respect. As a Catholic convert, I had thought that part of being Catholic was being very much formed in the conscience along the lines of the Hierarchical teachings and leadership views- allowing for prudential judgments but for one to really put on the Mind of Christ, one couldn’t really just circumvent the thinking of the official Church and her Hierarchs. But I have learned that many Catholics like to take matters into their own hands, to be bold liberals and conservatives standing up to the old fuddy-duddy out-of-touch bishops and prelates in the Vatican. Good luck with that:}

Foxfier
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 1:44am

tim shipe-
The tools don’t matter. What you’re willing to do with them, does. Doesn’t matter if I have an M-16, if I won’t use it; doesn’t matter if you have “only” a baseball bat to use against me, if I won’t use my gun.

If Israel were willing to carpet-bomb Gaza, then their troubles would be over. (For the obvious impaired: wouldn’t be right, but it would be simple.)

Were they willing to send their guys in with actual weapons drawn on those trying to break the blockade, this would be a more complicated story.

Didn’t happen. They took the idiots at their word, more the fools they.

The biggest testament to Israel’s good will? The long line of volunteers for America’s liberals to get cheap grace by “standing up” to them.

Henry Karlson
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 2:46am

“Nope. You break into my house and the cops pull a gun on you, you don’t have a right to defend yourself, even though your life is in danger.”

Funny that. Israel was the one who “broke into” someone else’s house.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 4:44am

“As a Catholic convert, I had thought that part of being Catholic was being very much formed in the conscience along the lines of the Hierarchical teachings and leadership views”

On secular matters Tim that has never been the case. In regard to foreign policy matters for instance Catholic rulers and peoples have never simply followed the Pope. There is a very long history in this area of Catholics making up there own minds on these types of questions, for good and for ill. I might add that this type of independence includes some of the greatest saints of the Church, for instance Saint Louis the IX of France always respected the popes of his day, but never forgot that he was King of France with duties and responsibilities in the secular realm that might well clash with the wishes of the Pope.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 5:33am

Even though I take for the most part the narrative of Palestinians as primary victims in this whole Israel/Palestine debacle over the years-

Error #1.

Blackadder
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 7:15am

This post by British MEP Daniel Hannan does a good job of expressing my views on the subject.

Jay Anderson
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 7:34am

No, Karlson, the people who are “stupid” are the ones who compare (or defend those who compare) the admittedly deplorable conditions in Gaza to the systematic rounding up and murdering of 6 million people by roasting them in ovens.

Can you really not recognize the cultural insensitivity of making an inapt Nazi comparison in accusing Jews of turning Gaza into a “concentration camp”?

I won’t defend Israel over what is taking place in Gaza. My problem with Cardinal Martino’s statement isn’t in his bringing attention to the conditions in Gaza, it’s in the symbolically loaded words that Cardinal Martino used in doing so. Given what they went through in the Shoah, for Jews to be accused of acting like Nazis (especially when they are, in fact, NOT acting like Nazis) is despicable.

Apart from the specific cultural insensitivity involved in accusing Jews of being like Nazis, let’s address the use of Nazi comparisons, in general. Analogical thinking is useful so long as the things being analogized are alike and the comparison is at least somewhat apt. Comparing people (or their actions) to Nazis is certainly an EASY rhetorical device because it invokes such strong imagery and paints the person being accused in the worst possible light. But it is the last refuge of the intellectually lazy and unthinking.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 7:43am

Give Karlson a break Jay. I suspect he thinks Israelis, at least those who run the military and the government, are Nazis, analogy be hanged.

Blackadder
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 7:55am

Calling Gaza a big concentration camp does seem historically insensitive. I would have said “giant prison.”

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 7:57am

I think a more accurate phrase is “a giant lunatic asylum”.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Wednesday, June 2, AD 2010 8:20am

Some interesting information on some of the flotilla participants.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4265.htm

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top