The group — a medical aid team of six Americans, a Briton, a German and four Afghans — had just finished eating when they were accosted by gunmen ... The gunmen marched the aid workers into the forest, stood 10 of them in a straight line, 7 men and 3 women, and shot them.
The Taliban admitted doing it, and claims that they were spies and Christian missionaries. This aid group has been helping the poor in Afghanistan since the 1960s, and plans to continue their efforts despite the massacre.
Amazingly enough, there's little or no outrage to be found on the left from the self-appointed arbiters of right and wrong in the wake of this killing by the Taliban. Instead of filling the entire top half of Memeorandum with their ranting, the story is pretty minor, with only a couple of left-wing blogs even bothering to comment. One of those deplores the killings, but thinks the story is getting too much coverage. The writer even spins a conspiracy theory about how the "western media" is "developing a narrative for staying in Afghanistan," supposedly in conjunction with CIA manipulation. Seriously. And of course he draws false analogies -- a left-wing staple -- with other killings of aid workers that we are apparently supposed to worry about more. Worrying about this one might help the war effort -- and we can't have that.
If this were an accidental killing of aid workers by the U.S. or Israel, or a justified killing of combatants posing as aid workers by the same, the left would be in full fury, hurling condemnations and accusations all over the place. When aid workers from a known, long-serving humanitarian organization unaffiliated with politics or government are murdered by a U.S. enemy, all you can hear is silence.
I feel this is a case of dog bits man vs. man bites dog. Everyone expects the Taliban to commit atrocities; they have been doing it for years, and the latest raft of killings is pretty much par for the course. The Flotilla raid is a different story. Israel is a modern, western nation, and to find them committing an act of privateering (the flotilla was in international water) is shocking, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteSo on one hand we have a brutal, oppressive group of terrorists killing ten people. Not surprising.
On the other hand, we have a western nation attacking a foreign ship in international waters, an act of debatable legality. This is cause for international debate and discussion, and is not par for the course.
"The Flotilla raid is a different story. Israel is a modern, western nation, and to find them committing an act of privateering (the flotilla was in international water) is shocking, to say the least."
ReplyDeleteI already addressed this in a previous post. What Israel was doing was enforcing a declared blockade. It was in no way an "act of privateering." And there was nothing shocking about it taking place in international waters. Blockade interceptions can take place anywhere.
Finally, Israel did not "attack" a foreign ship. It stopped it and boarded it for inspection, standard practice in enforcing a blockade. The only attack was made by the people on the ship, who ambushed the boarding party -- which incidentally came in foolishly with non-lethal weapons.
The entire anti-Israel narrative is false, based either on ignorance regarding the nature of blockades, or deliberate malice toward Israel.
Other than that, you have a point. It is true that massacres are par for the course for the Taliban, and therefore less remarkable. But the killing of those medical workers -- a deliberate execution after capture -- is bad even for the Taliban.
You hit the nail on the head with this UNRR. For most on the Left, they only have enough vile and time for one or two of their chosen pet people to wallow over. The Palestinians and Tibetans win this in the US. If I wanted to be a jerk I would just stop a person on the street with a 'Free Tibet' shirt and go 'Great shirt man, the Tibetans really need our help. How do you think we could also help the plight of China's Uighurs? I mean China totally fucks with them hard core just because their Muslims and of Central Asian decent.' 90% likely response, 'Who are the Uighurs and let me get back to my organic, vegan smoothie, please.'
ReplyDeleteBTW, I highly recommend reading Paul Berman's 'Terror and Liberalism' and 'Flight of the Intellectuals'. He does an excellent job tearing into the elite Left's hypocrisy on issues like this one. For instance, he explores why most on the Left spit vile toward Ayaan Hirsi Ali while giving 'moderate' Muslims who really actually hold very illiberal ideals, like Tariq Ramadan, praise.
ReplyDeleteThanks, I'll check it out. The point about Ayaan Hirsi Ali is similar to my pet peeve about fellow atheists who are extremely harsh critics of Christianity -- sometimes deservedly so -- but who are reluctant to level the same attacks on Islam, even though it is far worse as currently practiced in much of the world.
ReplyDelete"I already addressed this in a previous post. What Israel was doing was enforcing a declared blockade. It was in no way an "act of privateering." And there was nothing shocking about it taking place in international waters. Blockade interceptions can take place anywhere."
ReplyDeleteThe raid is hardly as clear cut as you make it seem. For starters, we have the question of the blockade. Is it legal? According to the UN, no.
If the blockade is illegal, then Israel's actions constitute privateering against a ship flying the Turkish flag, and are an act of war against Turkey.
"Finally, Israel did not "attack" a foreign ship. It stopped it and boarded it for inspection, standard practice in enforcing a blockade. The only attack was made by the people on the ship, who ambushed the boarding party -- which incidentally came in foolishly with non-lethal weapons."
Again, reality is not as black and white. If the blockade is illegal, then the aid workers were well within their rights to attack landing soldiers.
If the blockade is illegal, it comes down to who fired first. Both sides say the other did, and I trust neither side enough to take their word for it. The video evidence I have seen is similarly inconclusive.
"The raid is hardly as clear cut as you make it seem. For starters, we have the question of the blockade. Is it legal? According to the UN, no."
ReplyDeleteThe question of blockade legality is a different issue. But needless to say I'm not impressed by the opinion of the UN, which is invariably hostile to Israel.
"If the blockade is illegal, then Israel's actions constitute privateering against a ship flying the Turkish flag, and are an act of war against Turkey."
Actually Turkey's attempt to break a declared blockade could be seen as an act of war against Israel. The privateering argument is illogical and ridiculous in my opinion, and demonstrates a lack of understanding about the historical nature of privateer operations. It's an attempt to distort the recognized meaning of a word for political purposes.
If you've read this blog for any length of time, you would be aware that I have little regard for legal arguments in matters of war and peace. International law has no enforcement mechanism, unless it is imposed by strong states on the weak, and has wide latitude for interpretation. Not all nations are even signatories to the maze of agreements that make up international law, much of which rests or custom and tradition. But having said that...
The use of blockades, especially naval blockades, is a long-standing and recognized belligerent tactic. There is no particular reason to pretend that Israel's blockade is "illegal." Israel has obvious and justifiable reasons for imposing a blockade on armaments and other materials it sees as suspect. Just because Hamas supporters and other opponents of Israel declare something illegal, doesn't make it so.
But again, I already addressed most of these issues, particularly the ridiculous Turkish propaganda here & here.
"Actually Turkey's attempt to break a declared blockade could be seen as an act of war against Israel."
ReplyDeleteNot at all. The Turkish government did not participate in the flotilla; the ships were simply registered in Turkey.
"The privateering argument is illogical and ridiculous in my opinion, and demonstrates a lack of understanding about the historical nature of privateer operations. It's an attempt to distort the recognized meaning of a word for political purposes."
Privateering is not a perfect fit, granted, but it's as close a word as I can find to "seizure of private ships by government hands"
"If you've read this blog for any length of time, you would be aware that I have little regard for legal arguments in matters of war and peace. International law has no enforcement mechanism, unless it is imposed by strong states on the weak, and has wide latitude for interpretation. Not all nations are even signatories to the maze of agreements that make up international law, much of which rests or custom and tradition"
I'm a new reader, and I agree that international law is flawed, but it's a great concept. The way I've always seen it, by joining the UN, you agree to play by the rules of war, and abide by council decisions. If you don't, the other member nations have the right to declare war, economic sanctions, and similar measures on you.
The problem with the blockade is not that it limits armaments, it's that it limits civilian goods and necessary pieces of infrastructure, causing unnecessary suffering in the strip.
I agree with logicalrandom's interpretation (dog bites man, etc). I wouldn't expect any better of the Taliban (who are scumbags), but I think Israel ought to be held to a higher standard.
ReplyDeleteThere's disagreement about exactly what happened on the flotilla, largely because Israel confiscated video recording equipment that the "aid activists" had on board. I mean, that hardly implies they were confident that their conduct was above board!
I'm certainly not anti-Israel. I think the surrounding Arab states (inc Palestine) have a heck of a lot to answer for. But to say that therefore Israel can do no wrong I think is naive, and a closer match to the concept of a "useful idiot" than lefties sympathising with grubby peasants (the Palestinians) who, while many are no doubt anti-enlightenment terror-supporters, also lack the high-level centralised organisation possessed by Israel.
Also, with regard to Pat's comments: most people are rather ignorant about international politics. I hadn't heard of the Uighurs three years ago - had you? Most people pick and choose their causes - I think you'll find this applies about equally on the Left and Right. There's a lot of hyperbole and vitriol in Pat's comments, and not a lot of substance, in my opinion.
"Not at all. The Turkish government did not participate in the flotilla; the ships were simply registered in Turkey."
ReplyDeleteThere's some debate about the involvement of the Turkish government in backing the flotilla. The IHH appears to have some possible links to the ruling party. And the government encouraged that flotilla as opposed to other measures which would have avoided confrontation.
"Privateering is not a perfect fit, granted, but it's as close a word as I can find to "seizure of private ships by government hands"
It's a blockade action, there's no need to label it as something else. Naval forces conducting blockades stop & board ships, seize contraband, and sometimes impound the ships themselves. There's nothing at all unusual about that action, other than the fact that there was armed resistance which led to casualties.
"I'm a new reader, and I agree that international law is flawed, but it's a great concept."
It can and is sometimes useful, particularly in certain areas where there is widespread mutual agreement and the ability to enforce it with immediate countermeasures -- such as diplomatic immunity. But in other areas it is virtually meaningless and interpreted purely on the basis of political/national opinion and outlook. There are rules for blockades, but there are differing opinions on whether a blockade itself is legal.
"The problem with the blockade is not that it limits armaments, it's that it limits civilian goods and necessary pieces of infrastructure, causing unnecessary suffering in the strip."
A blockade always causes collective suffering -- that's what blockades do. The Israeli blockade is of a limited type, but as a blockade it still has a wide effect on the blockaded area. In my opinion the blockade causes no unnecessary suffering, because the blockade is a reasonable measure given what Israel has to deal with in Gaza.
Basically the Israelis have three main options with regard to Gaza.
1) Appeasement. They can make concessions and hope that stops hostile actions. In my opinion that's a bad idea, and it's also politically unfeasible in Israel. And its unnecessary since Israel is the stronger party.
2) Massive force. Israel can decide it did the wrong thing in giving Gaza autonomy, invade with overwhelming force, kill anyone that resists, and clamp-down with iron-fisted military rule. At some point it may come to that, but Israel doesn't want to do it, and it would be a PR disaster for a state that is already hated or disliked by much of the world.
3) Something in-between that uses less force but still attempts to protect Israel from attack from Gaza. A blockade is that sort of option. It may not be the best tactic, and it has its problems, but there are only so many types of limited force applications the Israelis can employ.
Anon,
ReplyDelete"I wouldn't expect any better of the Taliban (who are scumbags), but I think Israel ought to be held to a higher standard."
Israel is obviously already on a higher standard than the Taliban. But it is held to unreasonable standards.
"But to say that therefore Israel can do no wrong"
I would never hold that Israel can do no wrong. It bungled the boarding operation for one thing. But it was not wrong -- in my opinion -- for enforcing a blockade, or for responding with lethal force to an attack.
" most people are rather ignorant about international politics."
True, but the people I'm talking about are not.
"Most people pick and choose their causes - I think you'll find this applies about equally on the Left and Right."
That's also correct. But my main point, that many on the left routinely and loudly condemn lesser actions by the U.S. and its allies, while ignoring or downplaying far worse from our enemies is also true.
"In my opinion the blockade causes no unnecessary suffering, because the blockade is a reasonable measure given what Israel has to deal with in Gaza."
ReplyDeleteI would disagree here. The list of banned goods is excessive if the aim is to keep out military goods. There is no reason for banning mattresses, fridges, canned fruit, or chocolate.
Furthermore, items such as construction materials and steel pipe are banned as having military application. While this may be an acceptable justification, the benefit from allowing them in far outweighs the risk of them being co-opted. Many in the strip lack adequate housing, running water, or sewage. By allowing these conditions to persist, Israel is angering many in the strip, and driving them closer to Hamas.
To my mind, the best course of action is a blockade of all direct military goods, and allow at least limited quantities of everything else. Using fertilizer as an example, allow enough in to sustain farming, but at a low enough level that any taken for bomb-making would noticeably harm crop yields. Furthermore, if at all possible, send in personnel to repair damage caused by the 2007 war.
Such a course of action would at least heavily limit the ability of Hamas to wage war, but would not cause much suffering among the population.
I'm not certain of the exact reasons for why Israel has chosen to ban certain items in its blockade. Perhaps they would be better served with different selections. I'm not sure. But as for the dual-use items, you write:
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, items such as construction materials and steel pipe are banned as having military application. While this may be an acceptable justification, the benefit from allowing them in far outweighs the risk of them being co-opted. Many in the strip lack adequate housing, running water, or sewage. By allowing these conditions to persist, Israel is angering many in the strip, and driving them closer to Hamas."
Hamas is already in control of the Gaza strip. Anything Israel does will be used by Hamas as a motivating tool to increase support. That's not reason enough not to do it, if it increases Israeli security.
As for the suffering of the population. That is Hamas' responsibility, not Israel's. Israel's responsibility is to ensure the security of its own population.
Hamas may control the gaza strip, but the blockade does nothing but strengthen their grip. People blame Israel for their lack of food, clothing and water, and such anger is the perfect recruiting tool for Hamas and other radical groups. Even outside of the strip, the blockade is a useful recruitment tool for anti-Israel groups. So relaxing the blockade would be a smart move by Israel, especially if they can put the right spin on it.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, but I'm skeptical. What relaxing the blockade would also do is allow Hamas a better chance to import more weapons.
ReplyDeleteUNRR said:
ReplyDelete"many on the left routinely and loudly condemn lesser actions by the U.S. and its allies, while ignoring or downplaying far worse from our enemies"
I don't dispute this. I just hate it when people from group_1 criticise the ideology of group_2 because of the stupid writings of the some people in group_2. I think there's a lot that's legitimate in the criticisms Lefties level at the US and other countries, just as there's a lot of legitimate criticisms from Righties about protectionism, corruption, etc. Simply saying "this guys says such-and-such, which is stupid, ergo his whole cause is stupid" is wrong, IMO. Remember that what people call TheLeft and TheRight are not homogeneous groups, and do not as groups hold internally-consistent opinions.
logicalyrandom said:
"the benefit from allowing them in far outweighs the risk of them being co-opted"
I'm not sure I agree with this - not clear cut IMO.
"Using fertilizer as an example, allow enough in to sustain farming, but at a low enough level that any taken for bomb-making would noticeably harm crop yields"
Again, I suspect that some fertiliser would still be diverted to bomb-making - Israel is easy to blame for lack of food.
However, I've read quotes from Israeli leaders (no citation, sorry) who essentially admit that what they're doing to the Palestinians amounts to collective punishment for the actions of Hamas. This seems to me short-sighted. I agree that Israel is likely to radicalise people by keeping them in poverty.
UNRR said:
"Hamas is already in control of the Gaza strip. Anything Israel does will be used by Hamas as a motivating tool to increase support. That's not reason enough not to do it, if it increases Israeli security."
I agree with this, but
"As for the suffering of the population. That is Hamas' responsibility, not Israel's"
That is wrong. Israel has all but annexed the Palestinian territories. In so doing, they also take (some, perhaps not total) responsibility for the consequential suffering of the population.
When you read the history of the Middle East, it's amazing that _anyone_ in the West doesn't support Israel. The actions taken by the Arabs in the past are, IMO, fairly damning. I think this shows how badly Israel have mismanaged the situation and international opinion. My way of thinking about it is that Israel, as a country, is expressing a form of post traumatic stress disorder. Hardly surprising really, but I fear they're on a trajectory that will result in a very bloody conflict.
Cool and I have a super offer: Where To Buy Houses That Need Renovation home remodeling services
ReplyDelete