It was not an act of piracy; it was an illegal act of war: “A word on the legal position, which is very plain. To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.” For more, see http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/05/the_legal_posit.html

While politically stupid and perhaps morally reprehensible, Israel’s actions seem legal and arguably measured. Their blockade of Gaza is legal, so the they were within their rights stopping a flotilla attempting to breach the blockade. Moreover, the Israelis said they’d deliver the confiscated aid supplies over land to Gaza. One can argue about the political merits of the manner in which they went about stopping the flotilla (was there really no other way than to fast-rope commandoes onto the ships?), but to call it piracy or a war crime is just hyperbolic.

The attack was in international waters, not Israeli ones. Even if their blockade were legal, which it isn’t, they had no right to attack a humanitarian vessel in international waters. That is a crucial point. Furthermore, their blockade is not at all legal (it amounts to collective punishment, which is against international law), and, even if it were, they only have a right to inspect cargo, not to shoot the people transporting it preemptively (video indicates that the IDF started shooting before boarding). If there is no contraband in the transport, then they have to let it pass though. Further, it’s not clear that Israel has any legal claim to the costal waters of Gaza since they are in clear violation of the 1949 Geneva convention on the treatment of occupied populations.

You have to be entirely ignorant of the situation to think that the Israel is going to make sure that all of the aid to pass through, especially the construction materials needed to rebuild after their attack on Gaza. The “restricted” items list is notoriously long and only the most rudimentary food and medical supplies get through, even though human rights organizations have noted a serious lack of basic medical supplies.

To call what Israel did an illegal act of warfare is not at all hyperbolic. It is simple fact to anyone who acquaints themselves with the truth of the situation.

Forgive me for saying so, and I’m certain you’ll disagree, but you’re being naive. State action taken in the name of self-defense, however defined, is by definition legal. It may not be sound strategy and certainly it may not be in compliance with international law, but remind me again how many divisions the magistrates at The Hague command? (cf. the Iraq War, which I’m sure you’d argue was a violation of international law as well, and, sure, I’ll concede as much. What good does that do?)

Here’s a more balanced view:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/06/pirates-of-the-mediterranean-i.html

But it is obvious that this was not self-defense. It was an act of aggression in international waters against a humanitarian mission. The flotilla had been inspected prior to its departure and had no weapons on it, only humanitarian aid. The best the IDF could round up were some knives from the ship’s kitchen. Israel was the aggressor here, not a humanitarian flotilla in international waters.

The killing of activists was far beyond what would have been required for a proportional response, even if it was self-defense. It was the people resisting against the IDF’s illegitimate attack who were attacking in self-defense against an illegal raid.

But it has to be emphasized that:
(1) This was in international waters, outside of the blockade and what Israel claims to be their territorial waters.
(2) The blockade is illegal because it amounts to collective punishment of a civilian population. That is against international law.
(3) It’s not clear that Israel has an legitimate legal claim to the waters off the Gaza coast since it is an occupying power in contravention of its obligation under the Geneva convention.
(4) Israel attacked the flotilla preemptively, shooting people prior to boarding - not in immediate self-defense like they claimed. Israel has also blacked out media and confiscated cameras, film, and other recordings from the media. That doesn’t sound like something a “victim” would do.
(5) Israel responded with excessive violence to the threat, far beyond anything needed for “self-defense” (if we accept the assumption that it was self-defense).

You’re the one being naïve.

Ha :)
“But it is obvious that this was not self-defense”
“You’re the one being naïve.”

Dwell on those for a bit, won’t you? And on your assertions that casually followed as if they were self-evidently true.

Make an argument.

1) I already have, and cited another one as well. You haven’t bothered to engage.

2) Protip: When someone calls you on making an assertion as if it were self-evidently true, that typically means you’ve made an insufficiently justified claim. I accept your apology.

(1) I responded to your argument that it was self-defense pointing that that Israel acted outside of its territorial waters against an unarmed flotilla carrying only aid that had be inspected elsewhere. I also pointed out that the response by Israel was out of proportion to what would have been required even if it were true that they were acting in self-defense (which they weren’t). My claim that it was “obvious” that it wasn’t self-defense was followed by reasons, which you ignored.

(2) Pro-tip: Learn to go beyond sloganeering and engage with the basic claims in someone’s argument rather than waving them away.

I’ll also point out that in your first and second posts you made two assertions as though they were self-evidently true: (1) that Israel’s blockade is legal and (2) that Israel acted in self defense. I responded to both of those with other arguments, all of which you promptly ignored.

So here’s another pro-tip: Be consistent. If you want to rag on other people for making unjustified, self-evident assertions, try not to base all of your comments on them before doing so.

The situation in the Middle East is growing tense on a minute by minute basis. This incident highlights the increasing level of mistrist between the Israelis and The Palestinians. Yet it can potentially endanger the whole region. A diplomatic peace mission is needed with immediacy. International borders via water are a genuine gray area of the law in comparison to a nations sovereignity perhaps Former President Bill Clinton being shuttled ti the region could temporarily halt bad blood. Both sides have a genuine trust and respect for his evenhandedness when it comes to hotly irritable tempers in the conflict

I second that — apparently Turkey has withdrawn its ambassadors. Looks grim, to say the least. Clinton may have his hands full at the moment in Haiti, but Obama really should send someone.

If ultimately, the use of language is to defer, as Eric Gans suggests, violence, then I suspect that all the talking points made at this point are falling on deaf ears and have been for a long time. The apparent difficulty must be with language and its failure to do what is supposed to do. I’m afraid that if all we have left is language then…..

This discussion about whether the Israelis committed an act of piracy or not is sublimely silly. They do whatever they like when they like. Their chief intent is to starve the people of Gaza into submission and to make them hate Hamas. The chutzpah award goes to their offer to deliver the goods themselves when as the whole world knows their bureaucratic capriciousness in the operation of the limited conduits for the conveyance of aid. Behind this is no more and no less than the ethnic cleansing which is consistent with their practice from 1948 on. This is an apartheid regime. Correction: South African regime did not steal land from the townships. Call it an upgraded and improved version.

I have never knowingly bought an Israeli product. A packet of blades got past me two years ago. The good news is that they’re useless.

Piracy? Pirates raid ships and either a) take the stuff inside for themselves or b) take hostages in return for money.

Israel offered to deliver the goods to Gaza after inspecting the cargo. The only “piracy” that would have been involved would be if any of the cargo consisted of weapons, or I assume, elements for making weapons. Of course we can all be 100% confident from where we sit that nothing like that could possibly have been occurring either in actuality or potentially. So calling this “piracy” is just plain silly.

John,

True. By law, commissioned warships cannot commit acts of piracy. However, there might also be a moral dimension to piracy worth considering. Or it might just be mere semantics.

Ohplease,

Not all state actions taken in the name of self defense are legal. Unless, of course, you wish to define state actions in a way that makes them legal. Agents of the state (that is, folks who are so designated by whatever counts as the basis of legitimacy in a state) can presumably act illegally at the states behest. To use an example, when enhanced interrogation was being considered during the Bush years, there was the question of whether such action would be legal or not-even when done by the state.

I meant to imply as much by saying that though legal in one sense*, Israel’s (and, analogously, the US’s) actions may not be in compliance with international law. Pardon the ambiguity.

*[This is not really integral here, but even Obama, the great Nobel Peace Prize winner, asserted the general right of states take unilateral military action in the name of self-defense.]

What I mean to get at, though, is that though it’s certainly true that there are international norms and laws that constrain state action to a certain extent, and though it’s also certainly true that to a certain extent the international system is anarchic and there are limited, imperfect enforcement mechanisms to compel states to abide by international norms and laws, neither case obtains in pure form — it’s a muddle. (At least that’s how it seems to me.)

So it doesn’t make any sense to me to say ’such and such state action is illegal!’ As if we were talking about a common mugger who we could report to the local precinct simply by virtue of the obvious illegal of his actions.

*obvious illegality, that is

Michael Reidy says “Behind this is no more and no less than the ethnic cleansing which is consistent with their practice from 1948 on. This is an apartheid regime.” I think he is most probably right. That being the case, how can Jews behave like that? Have they learnt nothing from Herr Hitler?
On the other hand If armed soldiers enter my house apparently to prevent my doing something It is extremely unwise of me and the other members of my household to set about them with iron bars etc. and injure an kill them, (assuming that is in fact what happened on that ship). Soldiers are trained to respond to such circumstances, and it is certainly a no win situation for me. I am no supporter of Israeli politics, but common sense must prevail, notwithstanding rights and wrongs in such a situation.

“how can Jews behave like that? Have they learnt nothing from Herr Hitler?” Well, yes, they’ve learned a lot. They’ve learned that if they want to survive they must fight for themselves. No allied army stands with them. The international community does not concern itself with their concerns.

As for “ethnic cleansing”, no. So long as Hamas, etc. choose to fire missiles into Israel and partake in other aggressive violent behavior, while hiding behind their women, children, and other non-combs, such a charge is absurd. Much like the child that murders his parents, then begs for mercy because he’s an orphan. OK, that was a bit forced, but certainly more apropos than this “piracy” analogy. There is a war going on, whether it be called one or not, and this is more comparable to a siege…with humanitarian aid. The Palestinians have had opportunity after opportunity to make peace and keep it. They constantly choose war both in action and in words.

Perhaps when the international “community” shows as much concern for Israel’s existence as it does for certain “peace advocates” there will be peace. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Don:
You’re not keeping up with the breaking news from released/deported activists who report that before the commandos roped down shots were fired from the helicopters and stun grenades lobbed on to the deck. One man is reported to have been shot down through the top of his head. The camera footage that would corroborate this has been taken from the newsmen that were on board and what we are now seeing is selective footage from the Israelis. No doubt the activists thought that there was going to be a massacre and this prompted their reaction in self-defence. Without the full footage of the incident we will never know. Will this happen?

Uncle Jed:
Uncle Sam is as good an ally as your likely to get in this bad world when all have turned against you. Ethnic cleansing is entirely appropriate as a description, even Israeli historians accept that this happened and many Israelis are sickened by their government’s actions. The blog Magnes Zionist is an orthodox Jew’s cry from the heart at what is happening to the country of which he is a citizen.

I expect nothing much from governments. Continuing pressure from flotillas trying to break the cruel blockade may be effective. I note that South Africa has withdrawn her ambassador. The boycott of Israeli goods will gather momentum.

Leaving aside your weak justifications for your claims (”If they hadn’t taken the evidence…” Yes, maybe so. But you’re admitting you don’t have the evidence.), you’re talking about Hamas as if it’s the Southern Christian Leadership Council in the US Civil Rights movement and about the flotilla activists as if they were sitting at a counter of a whites-only diner. Surely you can see how Hamas’ resorting to violence and Israel’s legitimate security concerns complicate this matter, can’t you?

@Mike,

True-legality on the international level is rather different from legality within a state.

Don,

From a practical standpoint, it is unwise to provoke armed soldiers into combat. However, if armed people broke into your house and you believed that you were under attack, might you not decide to resist? Now, if you knew the armed people would just take you into custody without harm, then this would be sensible. But, if you suspected they might be there to do harm, then resisting might be sensible.

Your analogy to the house got me thinking about John Locke. If a ship is like a house, then the crew and passengers would seem to have the moral right to resist an armed incursion of this sort. Of course, it would be a bit unwise to go up against soldiers using only hoses, metal clubs and such.

Uncle Jed,

Well, the United States has consistently stood with Israel. Israel tends to get the bad press in part because they have generally won and are now seen as the occupiers and aggressors rather than victims. However, as you point out, there are victims on all the sides. That is typical of war.

Michael,

The full footage would clear things up quite a bit. If the Israelis attacked the ships first, then this would be ethically relevant. If the Israelis peacefully landed an assault team on the ship (yes, that sounds odd) from helicopters and the team members were attacked, then that would also be relevant. Of course, there is the initial question of whether it is right for the Israelis to have boarded the ships in the first place.

Perhaps such incidents could be avoided in the future by getting a neutral or trustworthy third party (or parties) to check ships coming in. That way, the ships could be searched without the chance of such an incident occurring (or at least at a greatly reduced chance).

Mike Lab:
No I haven’t become schizophrenic. Maybe I’m a victim of hasbara, that offshoot of the Ministry of Truth.

Mike Lab:
I forgot to add that 3rd. party inspection would not likely be acceptable to the Israelis as it would baulk their stated aim of keeping Gaza barely ticking over. That and the bother they’ve had with the U.N. and the little matter of white phosphorus etc, etc. Come in @hasbara.

I specified allied “army”. No one is shedding any blood for them. My point was that a half dozen nations can declare war on them and they do all the fighting themselves.

Also, in the vein of Israelis/Jews who oppose Israeli policies, if one was so inclined one could easily find many Turks who oppose what the flotillas are doing. Assuming one was so inclined, of course.

Michael R.,
Still, it would be worth proposing. However, I think you are right. An offer to do that would probably meet the usual political runaround from the involved parties. Also, who really wants to get involved in such a role-no real potential for gain and lots of potential for a political mess (just like the whole Middle East, some might say).

True, other nations do not put troops on the ground to fight side by side with Israeli forces. However, the United States provides weapons, intelligence support and so on. Plus, the United States has put forces into the area (our ill-fated operations in Lebanon, for example).

US forces were in Lebanon due to the civil war between Christain and Islam elements, not to defend Israel.

Israeli apologists have a habit of reminding about the WWII and “bad” allies who did not rush to save Jews. Two points are usually brought into focus: 1. “You” did not protect “us” and 2. Now we can do whatever we want to protect ourselves.
Response: 1. Too many people died during the WWII to save the Rule of Law that protects defenseless human beings from the corruption and cruelty of those in power. 2. Today, Israeli policies are dictated by the former Soviets like Avigdor Lieberamn with his criminal past and openly racist ideology: not a good sign for a self-proclaimed “democracy.”
How can Israel reconcile its posture of a “victim” with the practice of war crimes and massive violations of human rights? This is not possible.

Many straw-man arguments being presented here.

And terrorist apologists…what’s their excuse?

Hope you realize that neither side can claim having the terrorism-free history.
Ironically, the side that pretends to be morally superior “protesth too much.” What about releasing the unaltered recordings of the flotilla passengers? Material evidence is a powerful tool in a search for truth. – If Israel is innocent, this would stop any talks about war crimes in international waters…

I thought the subject of this post was to discern if Israel’s reaction to the flotillas constitutes piracy. Apparently we must first address several questions being begged:

What constitutes piracy?

What constitutes hypocracy?

At what point does a philosophical question stop and a political one begin?

Is this post meant to be a philosophical discussion or a political one?

Some of the arguments from this article: ‘http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/06/pirates-of-the-mediterranean-i.html’, mentioned earlier, have seemed most interesting to myself. Just wandering if anyone else wanted to have a look.
Also, I wonder how there can be any real ‘international laws’ as there is no world government. Any ‘international laws’ are surely only threats from more powerful groups to various smaller states, suggesting that action will be taken if the smaller state does not keep to the ‘law’.
Can we really condemn either side in this disagreement from any perspective other than a moral one?
I must admit, I know too little about present day world poltics, but are we perhaps still making failed attempts at world peace like the League of Nations of 1919? Perhaps all nations are still too concerned with themselves.
Lastly, I’ll say that the discussion so far on this article has seemed quite political, though I’m sure there’s some philosophy in there somewhere.

Just so there’s no confusion, the second and last time I refer to ‘this article’, I mean this site’s ‘Israeli Piracy?’ one.

Moral philosophy?

Those ships should havebeen sunk.
Next time, sink ‘em. Y’all beleive the Turks? Come on now….
That is like saying a Muslim feels guilt for lying to an infidel. The only lie is to yourself.

Moral philosophy is a most intriguing topic. Again one could perhaps argue that there is no official moral code, only what we choose ourselves. I suppose, when one examines the roots of the problem, it could be argued that there is no official law whatsoever other than what individuals decide, then force upon eachother or convince eachother to be correct. Relious people would disagree, but then again some might say that the major religions were just the blokes with better swords or fanatical mobs and that most of their beliefs disintegrate under scrutiny anyway.
It seems that philosophy tries to work out what is the ‘correct’ or ‘best’ belief. So, there should be more philosophy in this discussion and less wandering around in circles dabbling in politics. By the way, I do not intend to insult any religious people who might read these posts, I just hope to create a fairly neutral and even philosophical perspective on the matter; because of the ‘brain in the vat’ idea and Descartes ‘I think therefore I am’ as well as various other ideas, I think it best to keep an open mind.

[I should point out that I have unfortunately not read all posts. Apologies for any repetition etc.]

The golden rule: “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.”

International law simply tries to prevent the barbarity of those who “can do” whatever and to whomever they want if unaccountable.

Politics and philosophy thus is difficult to separate. When human beings are sorted by ethnicity, the golden rule collapses and barbarity triumphs. At this point, educational level per say (as a mass of acquired information) becomes irrelevant and, with the rejection of human rights, the civilization crumbles.

Since the resident philosopher appears to have abandoned his original query, I’ll bite…And what does the “golden rule” have to say about what to do when others have already done unto you and such is not to your liking? Also, from what authority does this rule descend?

Most people will have a good idea of what is right and wrong and for most people, all of these ideas are similar. Hence we have the common labelling of actions as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and so on and so on. I merely suggest, although I personally would prefer to live like a heavenly saint helping the poor etc, that perhaps someone doing ‘evil’ has as much of right to think that it is correct as we do to think otherwise as long as there is no form of ‘natural’ law stating that such is wrong. In my mind, the correct thing to do is to help others because this is mutually beneficial and a kind act. I am far happier being kind than not. But at what point can we declare boundries between right and wrong to which all must adhere? If more people want to be ‘good’ than ‘evil’, does this mean that ‘good’ has some form of natural basis and thus is correct? The golden rule is all very well, but is it not just the majority labelling their beliefs and not necessarily a basis for moral decisions? I would say that people should be ‘good’ and kind, but should we not first decide whether this is somehow naturally right or simply most people trying to enforce their own views on the rest of the world? I would prefer the former…
With ethnicity, I see every person as having equal opportunity and equal human rights as I prefer having civilized society and want people to be happy. The question is: could someone be somehow justified for wanting the opposite?

[sorry about the stupidly long posts and numerous rhetorical questions]

Uncle Jed: “what to do when others have already done unto you and such is not to your liking?”

Here steps in the Law, whether domestic or international. This explains our admiration for the 13th century document that paved road to the Bill of Rights.
The flotilla affair demonstrates how a nation - that demands from other nations to recognize the past evil of punishing a specific ethnic group by an arrogant power - is quite comfortable with treating another ethnic group in an unlawful manner.

A-M,
So we have moved on from moral philosophy to legal philosophy? I’d prefer to stay in one domain here. Please note Sleuth’s comments regarding perceptions, legal domains, and other forms of relativism.

Your deus-ex-machina-capital-letter-L-Law…Who is it written by and/or from what authority does it descend? What gives this as yet undefined Law its preeminence over other laws? Note that you only responded to one of my two questions above.

Sleuth,
I would suggest that the concepts of right and wrong come from their track records for successfully perpetuating the societies in which they are valued. A natural Darwinian morality. For example, the value of helping the poor is to help the greater society grow and prosper by turning a social burden into a social asset. The result of this being a greater propagation of the idea that helping the poor is a worthy effort.

Re: Anna-Marina | June 8, 2010, 11:43 am
The Golden Rule: “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you.”

I have never found a version of the Golden Rule which covers all contingencies.

This particular one looks defective to me.
For instance I would that others should render me first aid in the event of an accident. It seems to follow that I must not render first aid to others in the event they have an accident.

Again “do to others what you would like to be done to you”
Problems can arise here where people of different sexual orientations are concerned. My tastes generally may not be the same as yours.

And again “do not do to others what you would not like to be done to you”

I would not like to be buried in the ground when I die but others would, so I would be out of order in arranging a cremation for them? This seems somewhat heartless.

Don Bird: “I have never found a version of the Golden Rule which covers all contingencies.”

This rather a vulgar approach to the idea that can be rephrased as “do not harm others.”

Uncle Jed:
Are you sure that legal philosophy and moral philosophy are two separate domains?
The Law (a generic form for the various compilations of the rules of behaviour) is not a God from a machine. This is why two important documents were mentioned: Magna Carta and Bill of Rights. Both took a lot of time and concrete efforts and sacrifices to become the Law. They are perhaps the most important achievements of the Western civilization.

Legal philosophy and moral philosophy do overlap considerably. Of course, this overlap can be contentious. For example, some folks think that morality should be the basis of all law, while others (legalists or legal positivists) contend that law defines morality. Other folks take middle positions between these extremes.

However, there is an intuitive appeal in wanting certain immoral things to be legal and there is also a certain appeal to the notion that the laws should generally be obeyed (with notable exceptions).

Sorry, but living in England means I’m a few hours behind everyone else.

Uncle Jed provides an intersting view about Darwinian morality. I wonder: are we all happy to agree that the basic ‘law’ at the beginning of this is something along the lines of survival of the fittest?
Are we happy to accept that our condemnation of Israel’s actions, if indeed we do condemn their actions, is simply due to our societies being more powerful and thus dictating what is right and wrong?
I am not suggesting that laws are incorrect or that they should not be obeyed, only that we consider their real basis and not create some notion of them forming a basis for making decisions on their own. I believe that laws are excellent for maintaining a good society etc. etc. Yet when I consider orgins, popular society in general seems less richeous. Surely if the principle rule is survival of the fittest, our current sense of what is morally right and wrong should cause us to condemn ourselves for exploiting others, by using our power to force action.

Sorry for my time keeping abilities: England is actually a few hours in front of everyone else.

Re Anna -Marina 8th June:
“This rather a vulgar approach to the idea that can be rephrased as “do not harm others.”

I know I am adding virtually nothing to the essence of this discussion and probably dwelling on a trivial point. However if “do not harm others” is the Golden Rule then we were wrong to slaughter all those Germans in the second world war and also to conspire to Assassinate Hitler. Similarly, I am wrong to break the wrist of the man threatening my wife with a knife.

Don Brio,
The slaughter of the Nazis was not a happy endeavor, as well as the condemnation of Israel today is not a happy pursuit either.
The gist of this conversation is fairness and truth. There is no need to infuse the factor of ethnicity. Civilization has been developing the set of rules (Law) to support everybody’s safety. In return, everybody is required to follow the rules.
This sounds naive, but the alternative routs are not pretty.

Even if it could be shown conclusively that the boarding was not an act of piracy there would still remain a question whether the act of civil disobedience was moral and even in some sense obligatory in that we are bound to do what is in our power to do without putting ourself at grave risk. Singer’s pond principle. Further it might be asked whether if we were in the position that the Palestinians are in Gaza and the West Bank it might not also be moral to resist. Resistance can take many forms.

I think that drawing historical parallels with Jews in the ghetto of Warsaw are unhelpful. We are dealing with Israelis here who are in themselves a wretched people because they are prepared to justify living surrounded by the misery of others. However there is good salt amongst them in the peace activists who demonstrate against the evictions in East Jerusalem(Shakyh Jarrah). Illegal demonstrations no doubt.

Sigh…I had hoped that this discussion could get pulled back to just one philosophical without immediately running off all scatter-brained to another one. I had hopes when the subject of moral philosophy was raised. No sooner do a couple of us actually start getting some traction on the subject of morals when the discussion gets muddied with the subject of the Law. The problem is not that they are two totally separate domains. Of course they overlap (and BTW, what happened to the principle of addressing the stronger aspect of an argument?). However, as noted, law is to a significant degree based on morals. God help the society whose morals are completely based on law. This is not to say that everything immoral must be illegal or vice versa. But unless we can come to some sort of agreement on some basic moral principles, the rest of the discussion is groundless. I’m certainly not looking for perfect agreement, just some acknowledgement of the fundamental issues involved. Why is this so difficult?
Mr. Sleuth and Mr. Bird (and possibly others), should this discussion degenerate further would you be interested discussing it elsewhere? I have followed Mr. Bird’s comments here before and find many of them interesting. I haven’t seen Sleuth here before but I’m fairly new.

Uncle Jed Point taken. I have already admitted drifting off the point in this discussion And will now shut up unless something worth saying occurs to me. Minor eye surgery very recenty has somewhat dulled my mental acumen of late, not that it is all that brilliant at the best of times.

Actually, Mr. Bird, I was inviting you to and Mr. Sleuth and whomever else to discuss elsewhere because you are more inclined to stay on topic than off. By no means did I intend to (nor do I have any right to) chase anyone off , though I see where my comments could have been read that way. Apologies.

I am new here also and would gladly take the discussion further somewhere else. I was hoping to provoke some more philosophical responses and suggest that we consider what is behind our laws. I do enjoy discussing politics and would gladly indulge in quarrels about laws etc as was happening much earlier in this blog and to some extent much later; however, as this is a philosophical website we should surely be more intersted in deeper analysis of moral problems, for example.

Anna-Marina,

Indeed, laws have been developed by governments to ensure the safety of their people; but one could perhaps consider motives for the government doing this. Are not the governments of today really still as intent on their own interests as Medieval Kings and Queens? I have never thought that the world is pretty as in the sense mentioned above (although it is beautiful). Has not the world always been a warzone of some sort? Be it a hot war, cold war, war because of religion, cultural war or any other type of war, it is unfortunate but the world has always been vicious and filled with war.

Not to continue this chain of flicking from one topic to another but this might help with the whole piracy problem: piracy is defined by Roget’s dictionary as ‘robbery or illegal violence at sea’.

I would quite like to return to the subject of Darwinian morality, though arguably that was a splinter from the main discussions about laws etc.

Slueth, et al…

Hmm…Well the Oxford English Dictionary (assuming this “pirated” copy of the definition can be trusted) is:

“1. One who robs and plunders on the sea, navigable rivers, etc., or cruises about for that purpose; one who practises piracy; a sea-robber. 2. transf. A vessel employed in piracy or manned by pirates; a pirate-ship. 3. Any one who roves about in quest of plunder; one who robs with violence; a marauder, plunderer, despoiler. Also fig. 4. fig. a. One who appropriates or reproduces without leave, for his own benefit, a literary, artistic, or musical composition, or an idea or invention of another, or, more generally, anything that he has no right to; esp. one who infringes on the copyright of another. b. One who receives or transmits radio programmes without a licence to do so. Current usage refers to radio transmission”

I will contact a friend who has a website who is interested in these sort of discussions. I’m sure he will be happy to host it. I’ll get back to those who are interested. He is sometimes hard to raise, so I may not be able to get back until later tomorrow.

Uncle Jed:
If you get a definitive answer to the classification of the actions of the I.D.F. (led by their heroic corporal) will you be happy and feel that the matter is settled. Philosophy is not a branch of the Post Office. “This problem does not have a proper address, put it in the dead letter box”. Read the dialogues of Plato. Notice how he meanders, how he ends up in surprising places. It’s a lateral thinking sort of thing

I loved that line in Things to do in Denver when you’re dead
- Give it a name.

So I’m saying to you - Don’t give it a name or as the Zen master said:
- Say what that is without naming it. Or was it Wittgenstein who said:
- Don’t think, look and see.

I don’t mind waiting.

Here’s a thought: if Israel stole the recordings of the incident whilst at sea, that could be piracy. But did they ’steal’ the recordings?

Plato is very thought-provoking. I believe he is against the type of democracy that we make use of today.

Mr. Sleuth/Bird/possibly others,
The post is up. You can either Google “Sherman’s Cowlick” and it should be the first hit, or follow this link (assuming links will post in these comments):

http://shermanscowlick.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/darwinian-morality-etc-etc.html

Mr. Reidy,
The subject of this article is “Israeli Piracy?”. I am not saying other arguments are not worthy of discussion (dead letters). There are an infinite number of arguments that we could meander off to discuss. One being, do you suppose Plato could have been wrong about a few things? Could Western civilization have maybe learned a few things in the past 2400 years that Plato could not possibly have understood? But how would that address the issue of whether or not what Israel did was piracy or not? Of course people such as yourself already had your minds made up before even entering this discussion, so maybe you have a point. Wonder what Plato would say to that?

Uncle Jed:
I see three possible answers to the Piracy question:
(a) yes (b)no (c)maybe.
Judgements (a) Bad Israel (b) Incompetent management of police action with excessive force i.e. spraying suppressive fire on the deck before anyone landed. (c) both aforementioned judgements apply.

What I find amusing about hasbara is that it is contemptuous of the audience to whom it is delivered. It’s not so much ‘the dog ate my homework’ but ‘while I was on my way to school I was unfortunately abducted by aliens. Going through my bag they found my homework on the back page of which I had made a sketch at the solution of the Mandlebrot equations. They seemed interested in this and took it with them.’

Having stolen the laptops, phones, cameras etc of the passengers and crew we are left with the alien abduction type scenario. But was it really theft Uncle Jed? That’s the next question.

Mr. Reidy,
I see where you are all loosey-goosey free-thinking about all kinds of possibilities, but when it comes to Judgment of Israelis, it’s just a, b, or c. No consideration of the factors that brought about this situation. But as I said previously, you already had your mind made up about the issue before you got here. As to your “point”…and it’s the last “point” I care to address from you, to argue that the Israelis raided the flotilla to get some new laptops and cell phones is rather silly, so I’ll grant you the decency of pretending you could not possibly have meant that. Though you seem oblivious to the concern that Israel might possibly have that weapons contraband was on board, so perhaps your real point might be that the Israelis raided the flotillas to get video of Israelis raiding flotillas. Well I suppose one could argue that might be cheaper than the Hollywood method…not sure….

Well you take care now and try to have a nice day.

Don,

This might seem like a matter of semantics, but sometimes not doing harm requires killing people. To clarify a bit, if my goal is to minimize harm (the ultimate goal being that there is no harm done to anyone), then I might have to do harm to some to prevent them from creating a greater harm. By not acting against these people, I would do harm by my inaction.

Of course, it could be argued that if I follow the principle that I should do no harm, then I should not harm anyone-even to prevent greater harm. While this would have a certain appearance of nobility, it would also seem to be an abdication of moral responsibility.

Michael,

Civil disobedience against perceived wrongs generally seems right. While there can be exceptions (philosophers can always crank out some sort of counter-example), the worst consequences of a peaceful opposition tend to be very minor (at least in terms of what the peaceful folks do…what might be done to them is another matter).

Sleuth,

It depends on what is meant by “steal”, of course. :) On one hand, it can be argued that just as commissioned warships cannot be pirate ships, governments cannot steal. On the other hand, taking property from its legitimate owners does seem to be theft, no matter who does it. This, of course, does require developing a concept of legitimate ownership.

I would suspect that since the Israelis were engaged in a military operation, they did not (from a legal standpoint) steal anything or commit an act of piracy. Morally, though, I do not think that governments get to be exempted from moral constraints. A uniform and a flag are not “magic armor” against ethics. Or maybe they are.

Uncle Jed,

I’m sure that Michael Reidy was not claiming that the Israelis raided the boats to steal stuff. He seems to be just claiming that they took devices used to capture images/video of the incident.

In any case, I am sure that the Israelis were not out there to steal things. I suspect that they acted in a way that the folks in charge think will protect Israel and her citizens. I think that their strategy needs to be re-considered, but I do understand (to a degree) why Israel is maintaining the blockade and stopping ships. I do also understand why the folks in Gaza are not happy about their situation and why some might be inclined towards violence (which in turn leads the folks in Israel to respond).

Re:Mike LaBossiere | June 11, 2010
I was concerned here to attack any version of the Golden Rule for which as I have stated, one can always find something which it fails to embrace. It seems to me that every difference makes a difference. Thus in Life Physics Philosophy etc it is verging on the impossible to find separate states of affairs which are identical in all respects. Of course some differences are so trivial or irrelevant that they can be ignored it all depends on what the human being wants to do, or achieve.
When we come to approved patterns of human behaviour which seems to be the province of moral dictates what is good fair and virtuous today may not be so tomorrow. Very similar states of affairs may notwithstanding, require a modified pattern of behaviour.
This being the case one does, like Aristotle’s virtuous man, what seems best in the situation where one finds oneself; the act being the right thing to do and is done for the right motive in the way common to all virtuous men. Would it were all as simple as that though.
Were I to say “do no harm to others” I would mean just that, nothing more, no semantics, no thought of minimising harm, just plain and simple for all states of affairs blind adherence to the rule “do no harm to others.” No point in a rule if it is not obeyed. Mike has shown here where killing people can lead to the greater good and also a situation where not killing them can lead to abdication of moral responsibility.

Mike,
“they did not (from a legal standpoint) steal anything or commit an act of piracy”

Good. Now that we’ve settled that, can I look forward to an equally stimulating and rousing debate as to whether or not, or to what degree, the actions of Hamas resemble those of the Mafia?

Don,

True-context does matter. But, the golden rule does provide a nice moral one liner. Or sound bite. :)

Uncle Jed,

Most political groups have similarities with organized crime. Nothing new there.

Uncle Jed,
Did you mean Avigdor Lieberman’s connections to Israeli-Russian mafia?
To have an open racist as a minister of foreign affairs is a bad omen for Israel’s political life from a perspective of moral philosophy.
The flotilla story became so explosive because of the striking dissonance between the high moral standards that Israel has professed and demanded from the world community since WWII and the actual Israel’s disregard towards the norms of civilized behavior.

Re Mike La Bossiere june 14th:the golden rule does provide a nice moral one liner. Or sound bite. :)

Yes I can accept that. However as I have most likely said before; ‘Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fools’.
“Keep of the grass” is a good rule in certain circumstances, but where your flight from an enraged animal is concerned a short cut across it could be life saving. My point here is that religious and other rules of behaviour are often obeyed in such manner as running around the grass, rather than the sensible life saving short cut.

Sorry all but for the last four or five days the site said ’server migration in progress’ every time I tried to access it.

Mike LaBossiere,

Perhaps people should not be as content with laws. From a moral point of view many would say that Israel’s actions were incorrect. Storming the flotilla with guns blazing could surely only be justified if Israel had an intelligence report or similar item (which will never see the light of day) that was strong enough evidence to authorize lethal force in dealing with the ship. If no weapons etc were found, I would say that taking cameras and picture-capturing devices shows guilt and should be seen as stealing in some sense. If there was no evidence to suggest an armed response to a search, Israel had no right to shoot and kill.

Don,

True. The golden rule breaks down (or would seem to) in cases involving fanatics. For example, imagine someone who thinks that all Xs should be put to death. If asked “would you like to be put to death” a fanatic could say “I would, were I an X” and truly mean it. It probably also breaks in less extreme cases.

Sleuth,

True. By grabbing the recording devices they do create grounds for suspicion. To use a hack phrase, “if they have nothing to hide, why grab and hide the evidence of their innocence?”

That said, perhaps they could argue that the videos and images show specific Israeli soldiers and they are afraid that there will be targeted retaliation.

Blur the faces?

Uncle Jed:
You will be pleased to read the following:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/18/gaza-convoy-activists-debit-card-fraud

Now the big question is what costs 82pence in Tel Aviv? A coke? You have to keep up your strength when you’re saving the world from the Islamic hordes. Doubts will be expressed which have the same cogency as : you can swim the Channel but can you swim three lengths of the pool.

That would be
yo ho ho and a bottle of coke

Exceptionalism.
People of a different faith are demonized as sub-humans, and this makes it easier to rationalize an obvious barbarity. The recent demonstration of the light-skinned Israeli fanatics against school integration that would allow the daughters of the dark-skinned fanatics study along with the daughters of the light-skinned fanatics is an illustration to how the apartheid state is eating itself alive.
This is not about civilization and the universal rules. This is about political gains through pandering to the loud voices of fanatics. The denomination and causes are secondary to the politicking minds.
Unfortunately, Israelis’ superhuman mentality could not be taken lightly, as a local phenomenon. Because of the powerful Israeli lobbies in the major Western states, Israel has a potential to create horrific problems for a really large group of population.
As for the exceptional right to “defend itself” outside the international law and rules of behavior, there is nothing new in this claim. There have been innumerous atrocities and plunder justified by the “exceptional right” to start an aggression. And this is precisely why the world community needs the fresh air of accountability.

It was a proper act of war and properly done. Israel has every right to defend itself.
Palestine was never a county. Ever. It was a region. I back their actions 100%. Turkey has tossed it’s hat to the side of Islamists. They can no longer be trusted. Those who support terrorism (attacks on innocent citizens for the sake of political gain) are evil. Yes I use that word. If you side with evil then you too are evil. Choose a side and take a stand. The time comes when you must. Declare yourself.

Odins,
Are you sure that you can be an authority to those who adhere to the rue of law?
It is amazing how your proclamations match, word by word, the Bolshevics’ proclamations. They also believed that it is OK to be above the law for the sake of some mythical idea.
You could educate yourself by reading the last book by Solzhenitsin where he documented the role of Jews in the Russian Socialist Revolution.

Don’t quote the law
We have swords

The deaths could have been prevented if the United Nations had searched the flotilla for weapons.The group incapable of doing anything,the group that allowed the Ugandan genocide.

A sword will win you an empire, but you need laws to keep it.

Chris,

The UN can talk and spend money.

“nations have the right to act in self defense, even in international waters”

Nations have a right to self defence, however, they have a duty to exercise all reasonable non-violent means before acting violently in self defence. If nations have a right to pre-emptive aggression because they’ve been threatened, then the Pearl Harbour attack was emphatically justified.

In fact, the truce between Hamas and Israel between may and december 2008 was evidence that non-violent means are more effective than the blockade (an act of war) at “defending Israel”. Therefore, the blockade is a non-justified act of pre-emptive aggression, a war crime, and a crime against humanity (specifically collective punishment).

I was making an arguement for an intrusive United Nations,key word being United. I feel the human race’s survival depends on it.

Jerry Haber has the latest on the laptops confiscated from Mavi Marmara now appearing on the market. http://www.jeremiahhaber.com/
13 clicks on a dead man’s chest
Yo ho ho and a bottle of coke