Ambassador Shapiro puts distance between himself and Kerry
US Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro has put distance between himself and
his boss - Secretary of State
John Kerry - by telling Israel Radio that Israel's reaction to recent 'Palestinian' terror is
not excessive.
Shapiro made the statement during an interview Friday on Israel Radio
about indignation by Israeli officials at what they viewed as a
suggestion by a State Department spokesperson that Israel was using
excessive force against Palestinians.
“The United States does not view Israeli actions as excessive,”
Shapiro said. “We recognize the Israeli government’s right and
responsibility to defend its citizens.”
Asked whether the United States considered excessive specifically the
shooting of knife-wielding persons intent on stabbing passersby,
Shapiro said: “We have always supported and continue to support Israel’s
right to defend itself. There is no justification, there is no excuse
whatsoever for these outrageous attacks. They present a difficult
situation to deal with.”
But on Wednesday, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said that
although Israel “has a right and responsibility to protect” its
citizens, “we’ve certainly seen some reports of what many would consider
excessive use of force.”
Shapiro added that the United States “never suggested Israel changed
the status quo” at the Temple Mount — a claim which seems to be fueling
some Palestinian violence toward Israelis in the recent spate of
attacks.
In answer to a reporter’s question, Kirby on Wednesday said that the
status quo on the Temple Mount “has not been observed, which has led to a
lot of the violence.” Shortly thereafter, Kirby walked back that
statement, tweeting: “I did not intend to suggest that status quo at Temple Mount/Haram Al-Sharif has been broken.”
Here's hoping Shapiro can put some more distance between himself and Kerry.
Labels: Dan Shapiro, excessive force, John Kerry, John Kirby, Palestinian terrorism, Temple Mount
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.
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.
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.
Labels: excessive force, Mavi Marmara, Palmer Commission, use of force
