Use of force never acceptable, even in self-defense?
Evelyn Gordon has some prescient observations regarding the Palmer Commission's conclusion that the use of force by the IDF on the Mavi Marmara was 'excessive.'This begs an obvious question: How were the soldiers supposed to subdue this much larger group of heavily armed opponents, whom the report itself admits posed a threat to their own lives, without causing any injuries or deaths? The report provides no answer, because in reality, it’s simply not possible.The problem isn't with the West's attitude toward the use of military force. The problem is that there is something badly wrong with the West's attitude toward the use of military force by Jews. If any other country had used force the way the IDF did on the Marmara and came under investigation by a Palmer Commission, they would have gotten off scot free. Of course, no country other than Israel would ever have come under investigation for the use of force as on the Marmara in the first place.
Moreover, as any soldier knows, a wounded opponent can still kill. Shoot a man in the leg, for instance, and he can still kill you with his iron bar, stave, chain, knife or gun. The Israelis also had no way of knowing what other weaponry passengers might have – whether, for instance, some might have wired themselves with explosives, as Islamic fanatics (which by this point the soldiers knew they were facing) often do. Under such circumstances, no soldier worth his salt shoots once and hopes for the best; he keeps shooting until he’s sure his opponent is out of action. In a fight of this kind, the unpleasant truth is shooting someone multiple times is often a necessary precaution to make sure your opponent doesn’t kill you first.
Granted, the soldiers might never have been in this situation had the raid not been so poorly planned and executed. But once they were attacked in a way that required them “to use force for their own protection,” nothing they did was “excessive and unreasonable”; they did what was necessary under the circumstances to protect themselves.
Thus the report’s implication is that injuring or killing another is never acceptable, even in self-defense; it’s always “excessive and unreasonable.” But if soldiers on a legitimate mission – which the report says enforcing the Gaza blockade was – can’t use lethal force even to save their own lives, then something is badly wrong with the West’s attitude toward the use of military force.
Labels: excessive force, Mavi Marmara, Palmer Commission, use of force
2 Comments:
"once they were attacked in a way that required them “to use force for their own protection,” nothing they did was “excessive and unreasonable”"
Exactly.
"The problem is that there is something badly wrong with the West's attitude toward the use of military force by Jews."
That sure seems to the basis of the Palmer Panel's twisted logic.
Not only would no other country than Israel have come under investigation, no other country ever has or ever will face something totally unprecedented like the Mavi Marmara.
They are trying to convince Israel through relentless psychological battery that any kind of armed response to attack/attempted murder is disproportionate. And it seems, considering the paint ball guns that at least one person (Barak) is convinced the international community is right. Nothing less than national suicide will ever be acceptable.
Post a Comment
<< Home