Assume the following hypothetical situation for the purposes of this discussion: One of the violent drug cartels based in Mexico takes over the City of Tijuana. The Mexican government has no apparent ability to change this fact by force or otherwise. Our American government, in an effort to continue its battle to keep drugs out of the United States, takes on this cartel. In return, the cartel begins plotting a series of attacks across the border that land in San Diego. The cartel periodically fires rockets across the border at San Diego. The population of Tijuana is terrorized by the cartel operatives. For political reasons, the United States determines that it will not invade Mexico. The cartel is operating with sophisticated weaponry. While the Mexican government does what it can to block the smuggling of weapons into Tijuana, it is essentially inept at doing so. Efforts to block the smuggling of weaponry in are thwarted when the cartel, with vast operations originating in South America and significant resources at its disposal, begins providing munitions to its operatives in Tijuana through shipments made by sea vessel. While the Mexican Navy is incapable of stopping these shipments, the United States Navy can. Our commander in chief orders a blockade of the Baja California shoreline to stop the smuggling of weaponry into Tijuana that will ultimately be used against both Mexican citizens in Tijuana and to stop cross-border attacks into the United States. In order to effectuate this, the United States Navy forces each vessel approaching the Baja California shoreline to stop for inspection. If the vessel contains no contraband or munitions, the Navy allows the vessel to pass. If it does, the vessel and its crew are taken into custody.
If the foregoing scenario were to come to fruition would the world object? Would the governments of other Latin American countries protest the actions of the United States in enforcing this blockade? Would the European heads of state lodge protests against these actions? Would any single government move for a resolution in the United Nations calling upon the United States to cease its blockade of Baja California? Would anyone begin a "Free Tijuana" movement and test the powers of the United States Navy by attempting to ship in to Tijuana humanitarian supplies? Probably not. To the rest of the world, this action on behalf of the United States would be seen as nothing more than essential to the protection of American Citizens. But when a similar action is undertaken by the Government of Israel, the world condemns it. In fact, even our own government begins to make noises that Israel must take a different approach, that the embargo of Gaza is "not appropriate."
Under the guise of providing humanitarian missions, the "Free Gaza" flotilla suddenly appears on the horizon, allegedly wanting to provide much needed aid to the civilians of Gaza, who are somehow being victimized not by their own "captors", Hamas, but by Israel, who is attempting to defend herself from what the world knows to be an unending series of constant attacks upon its civilian population by Hamas, the organization deemed to be a terrorist organization by most Western governments. If the "Free Gaza' flotilla was that concerned about providing such supplies to the residents of the Gaza strip, why don't they simply sail to Ashdod, allow the inspection of these supplies by Israel to insure that the cargo is what Free Gaza claims it to be, and then allow the cargo to be taken into Gaza? Wouldn't that be a more peaceful means of providing aid? More importantly, why is it that an act of self-preservation by Israel is the subject of international condemnation, while the overthrow of the elected government of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, by Hamas is seemingly acceptable? Where is the outcry and condemnation of Hamas, or for that matter, its state-sponsored supporters, Iran and Syria? Why is it that the world looks the other way at an ongoing occupation by a terrorist entity, but is quick to condemn the only democracy in the Middle East for defending itself?
The world knows that Hamas is intent on destroying Israel. The world knows that Hamas is supported by the terrorist nations of Iran and Syria. And yet, these so-called "peace activists" do not focus their efforts on freeing the people of Gaza by calling for the withdrawal of Hamas. The "Free Gaza" movement does not take any action calling on Hamas to stop smuggling weaponry into Gaza, nor do they call upon Hamas to stop abusing the Gazans who are not affiliated with the Hamas organization. These "peace activists" take no action calling for Iran, which the world now knows is nearing completion of its nuclear capability, to stop funding the terrorists of Hamas. Instead, they focus their attention on creating a pretext to allow not only the nations of the Arab world, but the world as a whole, to condemn Israel for acting in a way it must act to protect itself. Their focus, and that of the rest of the world, should be on stopping the real occupation that is going on in Gaza, that being the occupation of the land by Hamas, not Israel.
In the hypothetical I posed above, would any "peace activists" focus their efforts their ire on the United States for protecting the citizens of San Diego? Certainly not.
As long as the world continues to promulgate a double-standard when it comes to Israel, the Israelis have no choice but to protect themselves. Last week, the Israeli Navy intercepted the "Rachel Corrie", the latest ship sent by "Free Gaza", and that is exactly what they should have done. When the "Free Gaza" movement garners the support of the world toward throwing Hamas out of Gaza, and into isolating Iran and Syria for supporting a terrorist entity on Israel's doorstep, perhaps then we can really accept them as true "peace activists." Until that happens, they are nothing more than pawns easily manipulated by those that do not want peace, and supported by a world that continues to find it politically acceptable to blame the Jews.