There has been much written recently--and properly so--about the botched boarding of a vessel attempting to breach the naval blockade which Israel established three years ago to interdict the delivery of certain materials to Gaza. Unfortunately, this resulted in the loss of nine lives. What is not clear is the degree to which Israel overreacted to the resistance they faced in boarding and taking control of that vessel. What is clear is that the ships stopped were challenging the blockade in hopes of raising the international focus on the situation in Gaza in general, and the legitimacy of the blockade in particular. That they succeeded in the court of public opinion seems beyond debate. Lost in the debate, however, is what a naval blockade is, and what are the risks inherent in testing it. Running a naval blockade, after all, is not like marching on the Pentagon.
Countries around the world (including the United States) have differed only in the degree to which they are critical of the blockade and the recent loss of life. While lip service has been given to the importance of Israel's security interests in the general sense, few have viewed the naval blockade of Gaza as being a legitimate means of safeguarding those interests. Over the ensuing weeks, various forums will debate the degree to which (a) the blockade is a legitimate function of Israel's security interests (something unlikely to provoke the same degree of concern when practiced by other countries), (b) whether or not their deadly reaction to the testing of the blockade was provoked, and (c) if so, was their reaction proportionate. So far, public opinion seems to have determined that Israel was at fault on (a) and (c), with (b) while yet to be determined, something of far lower priority.
Needless to say, issues like this arise whenever a country, its army or police force act in ways that result in the loss of human life. As a young man in the 60's, I can recall how strategies (both non-violent and otherwise) were designed to test the reaction of the police powers of states. Truly, the cause of civil rights and the anti-Vietnam-war movement were furthered by such tests. But, as mentioned above, a naval blockade is not an appropriate "forum" for such a test.
Turning to the suicide bombing of the wedding in Afghanistan, we are faced with a very different set of circumstances. This, mind you, was not a battle, let alone a blockade: it was an attack. The reason for this carnage appears to be the groom's membership in an anti-Taliban militia. The perpetrator, while presently unknown, appears to have been acting at the behest of the Taliban. (If I turn out to be wrong about this, I apologize in advance.) The Taliban, of course, is not a sovereign nation (although it once ruled Afghanistan and thought its approach not only legitimate, but the only way in which the country should have been run.) You may recall that (under its rule) secular music was forbidden, women were required to be covered from head to toe and to cease working outside the home. As for religious tolerance (or the lack thereof) remember the destruction of a giant statue of Buddha that had stood for centuries? Not exactly a beacon of enlightenment.
While supporters of, and apologists for, the Taliban may justify the attack at the wedding, most of the civilized world will disapprove in various degrees of expression. Indeed, many will recoil in horror. I wonder, however, how many who currently nurture contacts with the Taliban will react. How, in fact, will Islam react, and how will it make its feelings known?
Will there be a call for an international investigation? To what extent will Islam distance itself from this and all such acts? So far, the press coverage--at least in comparison to the Israeli blockade of Gaza--has been muted. Perhaps there is the assumption (both stated and implicit) that more is expected of Israel than the Taliban (one our ally, the other a sworn foe). And, of course, we should expect more from a sovereign nation, than a terrorist insurgency. Unfortunately, history is replete with sovereign nations acting themselves as terrorists. Distinctions between Israel and the Taliban notwithstanding--anyone criticizing Israel for its actions in the blockade should be up in arms over the atrocity perpetrated upon wedding-goers, whose only crime was opposing a totalitarian force dedicated, it would appear, to the eradication of both freedom and joy. The two acts differ not only in degree, but in kind.
Accordingly, we should look carefully at the public reaction to this wanton attack. It will be interesting to see who speaks up, and to what degree. More interesting will be those who don't say a word. To the extent that some who have been most vocal in their denunciation of Israel remain silent in the face of this unprovoked evil, it would be fair to ask what they really stand for. This is not meant to either excuse or defend Israel, nor does it mean that Israel, or any other country with whom we deal, should be free from criticism. As a free nation, we reserve the right--and frequently exercise it--to criticize ourselves. It is merely a question I pose to the "opinion makers" (public and otherwise). Is evil immutable or situational? Can you condemn Israel in the defense of its sovereignty, while ignoring (or minimizing the significance of) a cowardly act of unspeakable horror? Perhaps, once again, it depends on whose ox is getting gored.
No comments:
Post a Comment