An attack in international waters is illegal. Period. End of discussion.

The headline by the Associated Press, Walking fine line, US doesn't condemn Israeli raid, sums up the moral decay that money from AIPAC and wealthy Jewish voters is having on American credibility as a impartial and neutral participant in the Middle East peace process. While most American news outlets sympathetic to Israel will try to frame the event as a right for Israel self defense, it distracts viewers from the issue of Israel illegally attacking a group of unarmed civilian protestors in international waters. Instead of framing the issue as American media outlets want you to see the issue, the more important aspect of the story is the violation of international law and The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) by Israel.

This latest brutal act of violence against defenseless peace activists by Israel is a text book example of how a state is allowed to use violence, which otherwise would be labeled as terrorism if it was done by a non-state actor. Just imagine if the same attack was done by Somali pirates operating in international waters and you can see how Israel gets a free pass at using terror through the use of force.

Making the case even more embarrassing for Israeli supporters who want to play the victim card every chance they get, as War in Context and Robert Mackey points out at the New York Times, there is a parallel that some Israelis now find impossible to ignore: the resistance to the British naval assault on the SS Exodus in July 1947, as Jewish refugees used every makeshift weapon they could lay their hands on in their effort to repel British soldiers.

In international waters off Palestine the British Royal Navy intercepted the Exodus and British troops attempted to board.

Several hours of fighting followed, with the ship’s passengers spraying fuel oil and throwing smoke bombs, life rafts and whatever else came to hand, down on the British sailors trying to board, The Times reported at the time. Soon the British opened fire. Two immigrants and a crewman on the Exodus were killed; scores more were wounded, many seriously. The ship was towed to Haifa, and from there its passengers were deported, first to France and eventually to Germany, where they were placed in camps near Lübeck.

Perhaps Paul Woodward at War in Context puts the latest act of aggression by Israel in the perspective it deserves.

International outrage at the treatment of the passengers of the Exodus was instrumental in turning the tide of opinion in favor of the creation of a Jewish state. Who on board that ship would have anticipated that decades later it would be Jews themselves who became as callous as the British in their rejection of a humanitarian cause?