Skip Navigation
Megan McArdle

Megan McArdle - Megan McArdle is a senior editor for The Atlantic who writes about business and economics. She has worked at three start-ups, a consulting firm, an investment bank, a disaster recovery firm at Ground Zero, and The Economist. She is currently on leave.
More

Megan was born and raised on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and yes, she does enjoy her lattes, as well as the occasional extra-dry skim-milk cappuccino. Her checkered work history includes three start-ups, four years as a technology project manager for a boutique consulting firm, a summer as an associate at an investment bank, and a year spent as sort of an executive copy girl for one of the disaster-recovery firms at Ground Zero � all before the age of 30.

While working at Ground Zero, Megan started Live From the WTC, a blog focused on economics, business, and cooking. She may or may not have been the first major economics blogger, depending on whether we are allowed to throw outlying variables such as Brad Delong out of the set. From there it was but a few steps down the slippery slope to freelance journalism. She has worked in various capacities for The Economist, where she wrote about economics and oversaw the founding of Free Exchange, the magazine's economics blog. She has also maintained her own blog, Asymmetrical Information, which moved to The Atlantic, along with its owner, in August 2007.

Megan holds a bachelor's degree in English literature from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago. After a lifetime as a New Yorker, she now resides in northwest Washington, D.C., where she is still trying to figure out what one does with an apartment larger than 400 square feet.

Israel's Unjustifiable, No-Win Move

By Megan McArdle
Jun 1 2010, 10:01 AM ET Comment

I was all set to be sympathetic to the argument that the commandos who boarded the aid flotilla and killed a bunch of people were reacting to a threat; if you attack soldiers with pipes, you shouldn't be surprised if someone gets shot.  Very clearly, these guys were not the next incarnation of Gandhi; they were on that mission spoiling for a fight.

But then I realized that the ships were in international waters, and had every right to attack armed men attempting to board their ship.  It was not precisely bright, mind you--unless you're looking to die for a cause.  But Israel had no right to be there.  I think their establishment has gotten a little too caught up in the romance of illicit raids tacitly greenlighted by the US.  Suddenly every operation is Entebbe.

I mean, in the case of the Black September folks, my basic sympathies are with the Israelis.  And I'm fairly ok with bombing the incipient nuclear capacity of a near neighbor with a death with for your country.  But there is just no way to argue that this rises to the level of tracking down the folks who senselessly slaughtered your athletes, or preventing a scary neighbor from getting a nuclear bomb.  It's stopping a ship carrying food and supplies to the hungry.  It's hard to argue that Israel needed to stage this raid in international waters to stop the looming threat of . . . um . . . men with pipes.  Rather than, say, wait until the boats entered Israeli-controlled waters in the "exclusion zone" and board them (debatably) legally.

I'm with Von on this one: 

Dropping commandos one-by-one from a helicopter onto the deck of a (large) ship in international waters?  Did no one foresee the possibility that this plan, such as it was, might end badly?  And what was it going to achieve?  What was the best case scenario that would justify the international outrage from a successful raid? 

The best case was that Israel royally pissed off their one ally in the region by illegally boarding Turkish-flagged ship, forcing Turkey to abandon its basically friendly stance.  Of course, at the same time, they would have stopped the alarming flow of bandages and metal pipes into Gaza.  Yet it's hard to see how this was ever going to be a win.

This morning a bunch of people are trying to defend Israel by saying that the protesters attacked first.  No, they didn't.  Boarding someone's ship in international waters is an attack.  To put it another way, how many of the people mounting this defense would criticize Israeli sailors if they attacked a bunch of armed Palestinians who were airdropping, one by one, onto their ship, after firing tear gas grenades in to soften them up?

I am really not a fan of the brand of militant activists who go looking for a fight, and many of these folks are all too ready to look for the mote in Israel's eye while ignoring Hamas' avid desire to kill Israeli civilians. But I'm afraid Israel brought this one on themselves.  The stupidity of it is simply staggering.


Presented by

More at The Atlantic

Sex Selection in America: Why It Persists and How We Can Change It Sex-Selective Abortion Persists in America
How Headphones Changed the World How Headphones Changed the World
This Photo Uses Every Single Instagram Filter How to Go From Kinkade to Rothko in 18 Easy Steps
Under Obama, Men Killed by Drones Are Presumed to Be Terrorists Why Are So Few Civilians Killed by Drones?
Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register.
blog comments powered by Disqus
View All Correspondents

The Biggest Story in Photos

The Unreal World

May 31, 2012

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Facebook

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our free newsletters

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

(sample)

Megan McArdle
from the Magazine

Why You Can’t Get a Taxi

And how an upstart company may change that

Europe’s Real Crisis

The Continent’s problems are as much demographic as financial. They won’t go away soon.

Why Companies Fail

GM’s stock price has sunk by a third since its IPO. Why is corporate turnaround so difficult…