June 10, 2010

What About the Second Ammendment Rights of Flotilla Sailers, Huh?

A group of soldiers speed rope onto a boat in international waters. The boat is carrying food, supplies, and civilians who wish to land and give these items away to those in need. Some of the civilians are shot and killed; and yes, some the soldiers are attacked with pipes and other objects and injured (it is unclear, to me, which happened first).

An American citizen is shot four times in the head.

The question being very slowly digested by the American public is, whose fault is this? First of all, that there could exist some equivocation on the culpability of a military which has killed nine unarmed civilians in international water who were risking their lives to deliver aid to a destitute population enduring an illegal blockade seems shocking to me. But alas, here’s how it breaks down: Did Israel murder these civilians in cold blood, or did these terrorists-in-sheep’s-clothing have it coming? (For its part, the media seems to have decided already that it is the latter, regardless of how much Glenn Beck lies about that.)

While we slowly find out what the other side of the story is—you know, the one belonging to the civilians that were there and got shot at—and as we wait for an investigation that might determine an order of events and how those events will determine who is legally culpable or not, I have been pondering the content of the arguments thus far. For instance, I find the logic being used by the Pro-Israeli military crowd very interesting. It goes something like this: the Israeli government made it clear that they were not going to allow the flotilla into Gaza; the people on the Flotilla knew that and disregarded it; therefore Israel had the right to storm the boats (seemingly regardless of who owned the water that the flotilla was in); and since there were met with metal pipes and folding chairs when they zipped down their little wires into the middle of a scared and angry crowd, they had the right to open fire with lethal weapons (as opposed to tasers or what have you).

This picture, which was published by Mother Jones in a critique of the whole episode, seems to sum up the more reasonable objection to this argument.


But, unsurprisingly, I also smell hypocrisy. Remember that these are the same people (Fox and Co., Sarah Palin, etc) that are also the newest, biggest advocates of freedom as can only be delivered by castrating government. That is to say, they are usually the ones that preach about the coming war on the people, how the government is not to be trusted, and that no one should be able to tell you what to do with your money (I assume this includes sending it to starving Gaza citizens).

And yet, they are the first to defend a central government that attacks foreign vessels, in international waters, and American citizens no less. Why? They attack sailors on the Mavi Marmara for taking up weapons and yet they continually shriek about encroachments on the second amendment. Why? Would they be happier if the 19-year-old American citizen had gone down clutching an automatic weapon?

This is the question I have: would they have been this supportive if it had been American military boarding that boat? If it was for exactly the same reasons, i.e. turning back an aid flotilla headed for Gaza.

Or maybe it was just that the right has no love for mostly foreign, progressive activist. So what if that aid boat had been trying to break a blockade that Obama had, suppose, erected around Arizona? And I guess you’ll also have to imagine that everyone in Arizona was white, because ir seems these days they wouldn’t mind that much if it was Latinos.


Or maybe this whole small government thing really just isn’t what they want after all.

Giving police more powers, over-funding the military, torture, illegal espionage, spending into the red; the GOP and it’s supporters don’t really mind these sides of big government. This just falls into a long refrain of double standards on this topic. Because the truth is what they don’t like is democratic policies, not big government. But since they can’t argue the details of progressive legislation, instead they try to engage the country in a macro debate on government empowerment which conveniently falls by the wayside when they are in power.

So just to be clear:
Total governmental control over everything having to do with Gaza: Good.
Making it illegal for health insurance companies to drop you for getting sick: Bad.

Okay, got it.


Also! Smuggled video via Democracy Now!: