Goal or no goal?

In the 38th minute of the World Cup elimination match between England and Germany last week, Frank Lampard scored a goal. It clearly was a goal in that the ball crossed the goal line, but it was actually not allowed as a goal because the referee and the linesmen did not see it. They thought that the ball had not crossed the line after hitting the crossbar and being deflected downwards. So it was not registered as a goal, leaving England 2-1 behind, but millions, if not trillions, of TV viewers, as well as the spectators in the stadium and even the German coach saw that it actually was a goal. So the question arises, when is a goal not a goal?

I raise this issue in relation to Israel and the common perception among many that Israel is an aggressive militaristic state, so that when there was an encounter at sea and Turkish Muslims were killed by Israeli commandos, it was immediately assumed and widely reported that they were killed in a deliberate and premeditated attack by the armed commandos. Certainly this is what would have happened if the roles were reversed, so that most Brits and Muslims around the world assume that the IDF does what they would do, i.e. kill the enemy at every opportunity. But, after about 24 hours it became clear that that is not what happened, the facts are: 1. That a group of hard-core Turkish Islamists belonging to the IHH organization had prepared for a fight on board, had cut railings for handy metal bar weapons, had knives and even guns, and had declared that they wanted to become martyrs (shaheeds); 2. That the Israeli commandos were outnumbered (about 50 to 15) as they rapelled onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara, and they were set upon and beaten; 3. That the commandos did not have regular weapons, but were using paint guns for crowd control, although luckily they did have revolvers that eventually saved their lives; 4. That these facts were shown by numerous videos, both those taken by Israeli helicopters hovering above the ship and several that were taken on board by reporters. So that actually the violence was started by those on board, not the commanados, as attested also by the fact that on 5 other ships in the flotilla there was no violence. But, as in the case of this goal, the media and the audience playing the role of the referee and the linesmen failed to see the "goal." So it was declared not a goal, in contravention of the facts.

But, this comparison breaks down for two reasons: first, in the case of the World Cup referee, there is no indication that he or the linesmen were biased against England, it is assumed that it was simply negligence in that they failed to observe that the goal was scored, while by comparison the media and much of the public are pre-biased against Israel and so the worst is always assumed. Second, the rules of soccer (football) are well known, and whether or not a goal is scored should be clear, but the rules of engagement at sea between armed blockade breakers and Israeli commandos are unclear, and anything can happen. Also, the assumptions that most make and even assert that the blockade is illegal or that there is a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza are manifestly false, and this is a further part of the automatic bias against Israel. But, Israel cannot allow free entry of goods into Gaza without checking for arms and terrorists due to the enmity and attacks of Hamas that controls Gaza on Israeli territory and citizens. The Turkish PM was looking for a fight against Israel and he got it, but the onlooking public should not be taken in by Turkish declarations of outrage and rage, this is part of Erdogan's "move to the east." This is what serious analysts should be worried about, not whether or not a goal was scored.