In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined”) Cuba. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
And other than the blockade there's something else wrong:
Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiél, and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza — as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine, and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Israel has already twice intercepted weapons-laden ships from Iran destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because blockade is Israel’s fallback as the world systematically delegitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself — forward and active defense.
Via Steven Green who quips: "What Krauthammer gets wrong here, of course, is that Jews defending themselves is inherently illegal. And racist. Or at the very least, unacceptably outrageous."
Related, Brittan's own history with blockades and Jews.
In my experience I've found European and Canadian friends wrapping themselves up in this "international waters" line.
And it's a very easy narrative to make. If Israel was wrong because they enforced the blockade in international waters then it doesn't matter that that Turkish ship was part of a blockade runner, it doesn't matter that the ship was full of armed goons there for the purpose of martyerdoom, it doesn't matter that they had night vision goggles and other military equipment.
What you do is you hold onto that specific legal bit and focus on that.
I did bring up the Cuban Missile crisis and that was promptly ignored with a derisive "Might makes Right" comment. Which makes me wonder if they were against that measure too. Also it shows a quaint view of the world, while Might does not always "make Right". You do need Might to enforce Right. It's in the wording itself: en force.
What was truly revealing was what my Euro friend, who is a bit to enamored in international law for his own good (Though in fairness he is a sailor (as in sail boats) and his knowledge is mostly in maritime law, which is applicable here.), said. He said that there's no such thing as a blockade under international law. A little slip, but revealing.
Since I'm sure that if Israel had boarded the ships within the magic distance, the Euros and the Left would simply cry that those waters are Gazin and not Israeli and thus the Israelis had invaded. I presented that view and for the record was met with silence on that part.
Now here's the darkly amusing part. He's fascinated by firearms on a historical, tactical, and mechanical level, but states he has little interest in owning or even operating one.
Which is good because he's pro strong gun control and lives in a country thusly regulated. His argument is that sure weaker (elderly, women, and so on) and the simply outnumbered are unable to really defend themselves, but that's the price worth paying to reduce a criminal's "power". He sees a disarmed but physically and potentially numerically superior criminal having less power over a potential group of victims.
When confronted with mass shootings his idea is always more restrictions, at the cost of the woman who wants to defend herself from a stalker ex-boyfriend that has 50lbs of muscle on her.
So, his whole gun control argument depends on depriving people of weapons that enable large scale violence.
Let that sink in. In his country he's okay on having strong, strong border enforcement to inspect and quarantine weapons, but for Israel? Nah.
On an interesting twist he is big on nuclear proliferation by responsible states as a stabilization measure. So not all the stereotypes apply.
And then there's Hellen Thomas and her "Jews Go back Germany" insanity. Roger L. Simon has more. In short "It's the 30's all over again."
** Title is adapted from the Kids in the Hall Sketch: Dr. Seuss Bible
Though I prefer the raw sensless of their God Is Dead and Jesus, the bad carpenter sketches.