Thursday, June 3, 2010
Flotilla
Look what Israel didn't do wrong
By JOHN PODHORETZ
Last Updated: 9:24 AM, June 3, 2010
Posted: 7:14 AM, June 3, 2010
No matter whom you ask right now, it seems Israel did wrong.
Ask someone unfavorably disposed toward Israel, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because its assassins opened fire without provocation on a humanitarian flotilla intended to relieve the suffering people of Gaza.
Ask a friend of Israel, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because it sent its commandos in the dark into a hostile crowd that did them harm and provoked them into a violent response.
Ask someone who opposes Israel's efforts to contain the terrorist group Hamas within the borders and shoreline of Gaza, and you'll hear Israel did wrong by instituting a naval blockade of Gaza in the first place.
Ask someone who seeks the active destruction of Hamas, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because the blockade is an ineffectual half-measure in any case, so why suffer the slings and arrows of an international crisis because of it?
Ask someone who thinks conflicts between the Palestinians and the Israelis are a never-ending spiral of violence, and you'll hear Israel did wrong because the violence its commandoes found it necessary to visit upon those on the ship will only beget more violence.
Ask someone who thinks the Palestinians and their rejectionist insistence on Israel's destruction are the causes of violence, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because it should have taken the ships out through some means of military stealth before they even set sail from Cyprus.
Ask someone who believes what he is told by media largely hostile to Israel, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because Israel always does wrong.
Ask someone who knows that the media are largely hostile to Israel, and he'll say Israel did wrong because Israel had no business giving the media this kind of ammunition.
And on and on we go. Enemies and friends, anti-Zionists and Zionists and post-Zionists alike, are all in rare agreement that what happened was a disaster, a calamity, a fiasco, a tragedy.
Those are terms appropriate for a world-historical event. Now, what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara wasn't good. It was terrible. But under even the broadest definition of a war crime, it wasn't a war crime. And under the broadest definition of a self-inflicted wound, it wasn't that either.
First, the war crime. The blockade of Gaza has been in place since 2007, when Hamas won its war with its Palestinian rival Fatah and claimed dominion over the territory. The blockade wasn't just imposed by Israel, but by Egypt as well. The purpose is to keep weaponry out of the hands and the control of Hamas.
Blockades are highly visible. They are declared. Their parameters are known to everyone. Israel and Hamas are at war. Israel has followed the terms of international law in establishing the blockade of Gaza, and without question, the blockade as it stands is legal.
The decision to attempt a run on a blockade is thus a decision to put one's life at risk, whether you are a single person or one of 700 in a flotilla. The onus rests with the blockade runner, whether he is Rhett Butler (the most famous fictional blockade runner, in "Gone with the Wind") or a hateful terrorist sympathizer who has decided to put his or her life on the line to front for Hamas.
Now for the self-inflicted wound. In the history of bungled operations, this one doesn't hold a candle to the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu in 1993 that led to the horrifying slaughter of 18 US Rangers. There have been dozens of encounters in Iraq and Afghanistan that have spiraled out of control in far worse ways.
Israel faced a blockade run. It was evidently unable to prevent the flotilla jaunt from happening. Failure to act would have ended the blockade and handed Hamas a much larger victory than the media victory it won this week. That too would have occasioned a frenzy, with Hamas trumpeting a triumph and Israelis and friends of Israel around the world wondering how on earth this could have been allowed to happen.
Eventually, we will learn what Israel's military did poorly. But though it may have done what it did poorly, it did not do wrong.
Israel's friends often complain, fairly, that the country is held to a standard of conduct no other nation on earth could possibly meet. One might say in this instance that some of Israel's friends are insisting on holding Israel's military to a standard of performance no military force has ever, will ever, or could ever possibly meet.
By JOHN PODHORETZ
Last Updated: 9:24 AM, June 3, 2010
Posted: 7:14 AM, June 3, 2010
No matter whom you ask right now, it seems Israel did wrong.
Ask someone unfavorably disposed toward Israel, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because its assassins opened fire without provocation on a humanitarian flotilla intended to relieve the suffering people of Gaza.
Ask a friend of Israel, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because it sent its commandos in the dark into a hostile crowd that did them harm and provoked them into a violent response.
Ask someone who opposes Israel's efforts to contain the terrorist group Hamas within the borders and shoreline of Gaza, and you'll hear Israel did wrong by instituting a naval blockade of Gaza in the first place.
Ask someone who seeks the active destruction of Hamas, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because the blockade is an ineffectual half-measure in any case, so why suffer the slings and arrows of an international crisis because of it?
Ask someone who thinks conflicts between the Palestinians and the Israelis are a never-ending spiral of violence, and you'll hear Israel did wrong because the violence its commandoes found it necessary to visit upon those on the ship will only beget more violence.
Ask someone who thinks the Palestinians and their rejectionist insistence on Israel's destruction are the causes of violence, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because it should have taken the ships out through some means of military stealth before they even set sail from Cyprus.
Ask someone who believes what he is told by media largely hostile to Israel, and you'll hear that Israel did wrong because Israel always does wrong.
Ask someone who knows that the media are largely hostile to Israel, and he'll say Israel did wrong because Israel had no business giving the media this kind of ammunition.
And on and on we go. Enemies and friends, anti-Zionists and Zionists and post-Zionists alike, are all in rare agreement that what happened was a disaster, a calamity, a fiasco, a tragedy.
Those are terms appropriate for a world-historical event. Now, what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara wasn't good. It was terrible. But under even the broadest definition of a war crime, it wasn't a war crime. And under the broadest definition of a self-inflicted wound, it wasn't that either.
First, the war crime. The blockade of Gaza has been in place since 2007, when Hamas won its war with its Palestinian rival Fatah and claimed dominion over the territory. The blockade wasn't just imposed by Israel, but by Egypt as well. The purpose is to keep weaponry out of the hands and the control of Hamas.
Blockades are highly visible. They are declared. Their parameters are known to everyone. Israel and Hamas are at war. Israel has followed the terms of international law in establishing the blockade of Gaza, and without question, the blockade as it stands is legal.
The decision to attempt a run on a blockade is thus a decision to put one's life at risk, whether you are a single person or one of 700 in a flotilla. The onus rests with the blockade runner, whether he is Rhett Butler (the most famous fictional blockade runner, in "Gone with the Wind") or a hateful terrorist sympathizer who has decided to put his or her life on the line to front for Hamas.
Now for the self-inflicted wound. In the history of bungled operations, this one doesn't hold a candle to the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu in 1993 that led to the horrifying slaughter of 18 US Rangers. There have been dozens of encounters in Iraq and Afghanistan that have spiraled out of control in far worse ways.
Israel faced a blockade run. It was evidently unable to prevent the flotilla jaunt from happening. Failure to act would have ended the blockade and handed Hamas a much larger victory than the media victory it won this week. That too would have occasioned a frenzy, with Hamas trumpeting a triumph and Israelis and friends of Israel around the world wondering how on earth this could have been allowed to happen.
Eventually, we will learn what Israel's military did poorly. But though it may have done what it did poorly, it did not do wrong.
Israel's friends often complain, fairly, that the country is held to a standard of conduct no other nation on earth could possibly meet. One might say in this instance that some of Israel's friends are insisting on holding Israel's military to a standard of performance no military force has ever, will ever, or could ever possibly meet.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Flotilla
Israel, Trapped in Plato's Cave
Peter Wehner Web Exclusive
Like a rock emerging in a sea of lies, we know important facts about the confrontation that took place on Monday between Israel and a flotilla of ships making its way to the Gaza strip.
The blockade was justified by international law. (Egypt, by the way, had also imposed a blockade on Gaza because of the threat from the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which illegally seized control of Gaza in 2007.) The Israeli navy first tried to warn the ships off verbally. The “peace activist” on board assaulted Israeli commandos (who were armed with paintball guns) with clubs, knives, metal pipes, stun grenades, and handguns; it turns out that many of them were recruited specifically to attack Israeli soldiers. The “humanitarian relief” the flotilla was supposedly bringing to Palestinians in Gaza was in fact no such thing (food, medicine, relief supplies, and electricity continue to pour into Gaza on a daily basis). And the “charity” that helped organize the flotilla was in fact the radical Turkish group IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), which has longstanding ties to Hamas and the global jihadist movement. Yet somehow, some way, it is Israel that is condemned when it acts in its own self-defense.
This is not the first time the early narrative of an incident is heavily biased against Israel. Recall the “Jenin Massacre.” Jenin was a refugee camp in the West Bank that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entered in 2002 in response to Yasir Arafat’s second intifada and because it served as a launch site for terrorist attacks against Israeli towns and villages. But the supposed “massacre” by the IDF, which dominated much of the outraged attention of the world -- and of course the United Nations, organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and the BBC -- turned out to be nothing of the kind. In fact, what we learned is how careful and conscientious Israel was, with the IDF going door to door rather than destroying Jenin by air in order to keep civilian casualties at a minimum. (The Israeli army lost 23 soldiers in the process; for more, see this.) Yet the truth about Jenin never caught up to the lies. That will undoubtedly be the case with the confrontation that occurred on the Mediterranean Sea earlier this week.
Yet now, as then, some friends of Israel describe what its military did as a “fiasco” that will further damage Israel’s “already tattered reputation.” Their point (as John comments on here) is that the standard Israel is held to is higher than that of other nations. That may be unfair, and Israel may even be fully justified in the actions it took, but that is just the way it is. Those are the rules of the diplomatic road; Israel needs to accept them and abide by them. So in the case of the commandos boarding the Turkish-flagged ferry Mavi Marmaraf, Israel should have done more of this and less of that. It should have acted sooner, or later, or not at all. Israel, after all, needs to avoid the traps and snares that its enemies have set in order to keep from becoming even more of a pariah state.
I get all that. And yet on a deeper level, what is being recommended is that Israel (and the rest of us) participate in a game that is rigged from the outset, the Middle East version of Plato’s Cave, where we mistake shadows for reality.
Sometimes it is the duty of responsible people to reject the shadows in favor of reality. And in the case of Israel -- not always, but often enough -- the reality is this: it is being condemned not because of its actions; it is being condemned because of its very existence, because of its very nature, and yes, because of its Jewishness. The objections against Israel are not specific to this or that act; they are existential.
I say that in full recognition that many fine and intelligent people, including close friends of mine, view Israel in a far more critical light than do I. Reasonable people can certainly interpret facts and just causes in different ways. But for others, there is more, much more, going on than simply that.
The assault on Israel that we see emanating from some quarters of the American left and a few remaining pockets on the “paleo-conservative” right, in parts of Europe, in much of the Muslim world, and from international organizations like the United Nations and so-called human rights groups is too fierce, too hypocritical, too unqualified, and too preposterous to be explained by anything other than malignant motivations. These critics are far too eager to light the match -- any match -- that leads to an anti-Israeli conflagration.
Let’s cut through the clouds of deceit and duplicity, shall we? Israel, more than any nation on earth, is held to an impossible standard. Its own sacrifices for peace, which exceed those of any other country, are constantly overlooked while the sadistic acts and crimes of its enemies too often excused.
Israel is far from perfect -- but it is, in the totality of its acts, among the most estimable and impressive nations in human history. Its achievements and moral accomplishments are staggering. The U.S. must therefore keep faith with the Jewish state when it is under unfair attack. America and its leaders, rather than making their chief concern “containing diplomatic fallout,” must speak truth in the face of an avalanche of lies.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in a public life filled with magnificent moments, was never more impressive than when he served as the U.S. ambassador to the UN when a resolution declaring that “Zionism is racism” was adopted. A majority of the world's nations condemned Israel, claiming there was an “unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism.” Ambassador Moynihan rose to speak, not apologetically but clearly and courageously, declaring that the “United States ... does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”
Ambassador Moynihan called things by their rightful name. So should we.
Peter Wehner Web Exclusive
Like a rock emerging in a sea of lies, we know important facts about the confrontation that took place on Monday between Israel and a flotilla of ships making its way to the Gaza strip.
The blockade was justified by international law. (Egypt, by the way, had also imposed a blockade on Gaza because of the threat from the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which illegally seized control of Gaza in 2007.) The Israeli navy first tried to warn the ships off verbally. The “peace activist” on board assaulted Israeli commandos (who were armed with paintball guns) with clubs, knives, metal pipes, stun grenades, and handguns; it turns out that many of them were recruited specifically to attack Israeli soldiers. The “humanitarian relief” the flotilla was supposedly bringing to Palestinians in Gaza was in fact no such thing (food, medicine, relief supplies, and electricity continue to pour into Gaza on a daily basis). And the “charity” that helped organize the flotilla was in fact the radical Turkish group IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi), which has longstanding ties to Hamas and the global jihadist movement. Yet somehow, some way, it is Israel that is condemned when it acts in its own self-defense.
This is not the first time the early narrative of an incident is heavily biased against Israel. Recall the “Jenin Massacre.” Jenin was a refugee camp in the West Bank that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) entered in 2002 in response to Yasir Arafat’s second intifada and because it served as a launch site for terrorist attacks against Israeli towns and villages. But the supposed “massacre” by the IDF, which dominated much of the outraged attention of the world -- and of course the United Nations, organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and the BBC -- turned out to be nothing of the kind. In fact, what we learned is how careful and conscientious Israel was, with the IDF going door to door rather than destroying Jenin by air in order to keep civilian casualties at a minimum. (The Israeli army lost 23 soldiers in the process; for more, see this.) Yet the truth about Jenin never caught up to the lies. That will undoubtedly be the case with the confrontation that occurred on the Mediterranean Sea earlier this week.
Yet now, as then, some friends of Israel describe what its military did as a “fiasco” that will further damage Israel’s “already tattered reputation.” Their point (as John comments on here) is that the standard Israel is held to is higher than that of other nations. That may be unfair, and Israel may even be fully justified in the actions it took, but that is just the way it is. Those are the rules of the diplomatic road; Israel needs to accept them and abide by them. So in the case of the commandos boarding the Turkish-flagged ferry Mavi Marmaraf, Israel should have done more of this and less of that. It should have acted sooner, or later, or not at all. Israel, after all, needs to avoid the traps and snares that its enemies have set in order to keep from becoming even more of a pariah state.
I get all that. And yet on a deeper level, what is being recommended is that Israel (and the rest of us) participate in a game that is rigged from the outset, the Middle East version of Plato’s Cave, where we mistake shadows for reality.
Sometimes it is the duty of responsible people to reject the shadows in favor of reality. And in the case of Israel -- not always, but often enough -- the reality is this: it is being condemned not because of its actions; it is being condemned because of its very existence, because of its very nature, and yes, because of its Jewishness. The objections against Israel are not specific to this or that act; they are existential.
I say that in full recognition that many fine and intelligent people, including close friends of mine, view Israel in a far more critical light than do I. Reasonable people can certainly interpret facts and just causes in different ways. But for others, there is more, much more, going on than simply that.
The assault on Israel that we see emanating from some quarters of the American left and a few remaining pockets on the “paleo-conservative” right, in parts of Europe, in much of the Muslim world, and from international organizations like the United Nations and so-called human rights groups is too fierce, too hypocritical, too unqualified, and too preposterous to be explained by anything other than malignant motivations. These critics are far too eager to light the match -- any match -- that leads to an anti-Israeli conflagration.
Let’s cut through the clouds of deceit and duplicity, shall we? Israel, more than any nation on earth, is held to an impossible standard. Its own sacrifices for peace, which exceed those of any other country, are constantly overlooked while the sadistic acts and crimes of its enemies too often excused.
Israel is far from perfect -- but it is, in the totality of its acts, among the most estimable and impressive nations in human history. Its achievements and moral accomplishments are staggering. The U.S. must therefore keep faith with the Jewish state when it is under unfair attack. America and its leaders, rather than making their chief concern “containing diplomatic fallout,” must speak truth in the face of an avalanche of lies.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, in a public life filled with magnificent moments, was never more impressive than when he served as the U.S. ambassador to the UN when a resolution declaring that “Zionism is racism” was adopted. A majority of the world's nations condemned Israel, claiming there was an “unholy alliance between South African racism and Zionism.” Ambassador Moynihan rose to speak, not apologetically but clearly and courageously, declaring that the “United States ... does not acknowledge, it will not abide by, it will never acquiesce in this infamous act.”
Ambassador Moynihan called things by their rightful name. So should we.
Elliott Abrams
Joining the Jackals
The Obama administration abandons Israel
BY Elliott Abrams
June 2, 2010 7:55 AM
At the United Nations, a lynch mob for Israel is always just a moment away. The Islamic countries are a reliable source of venom, led by the Arab bloc; what we used to call the “non-aligned” are all aligned against Israel and happy to join the fun; and the Europeans can be counted on for hand-wringing rather than staunch resistance. Only the United States, and a few brave allies like Canada and Australia, can be counted upon to oppose diplomatic lynchings year after year; and only the United States can stop them in the Security Council.
In the American government, it is never the State Department bureaucracy that wishes to brave the endless assaults at the UN. Normally the resistance comes not from the various regional bureaus or from the International Organizations bureau, where Israel is so often viewed as a giant pain, but from the White House and sometimes (example: George Shultz) the Secretary of State.
This week the mob formed again, instantly, after the Gaza flotilla disaster, reinforced this time by the leadership of Turkey, whose language at the UN was more vicious than that used by the Arabs. As usual there was really only one question once the mob began to gather. It is the question that arose repeatedly in the Bush years—when the Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi were killed by Israel, when Israel acted in Gaza, when Israel put down the intifada in the West Bank, and during the 2006 war in Lebanon and the late 2008 fighting in Gaza: would Israel stand alone, or would the United States stand with her and prevent the lynching? Would the U.S., in Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memorable phrase, "join the jackals?"
This week the Obama administration answered the question: Yes we would, and Israel would stand alone. It is simple to block the kind of attack issued as a “President’s Statement” on behalf of the Council, for such a statement requires unanimity. The United States can just say “No,” and make it clear that orders have come from the White House and will not be changed. Then negotiations begin on a serious statement—or, there can be no statement at all. The killing of dozens of South Korean sailors by North Korea in an action that truly threatens the peace did not evoke the kind of action the Security Council took against Israel, proving that the UN does not always act, or act in the same way, when news flashes hit. Whether Israel is slammed depends on whether the United States is willing to take a stand.
On the Gaza flotilla, the Obama administration waffled and straddled. It agreed to a statement in which the United Nations condemned the “acts” that led to loss of life but did not say “We condemn Israel.” Presumably White House congratulated itself on this elision, but no one is fooled: the world media keep repeating that the Security Council condemned Israel, and in this case it is hard to argue. Yet it would have been simple to stop the mob had the White House wanted to. The facts were not in yet and indeed are still not in. The videos suggest that dozens of people (all Turks, it appears, but that too is not fully clear) on the boats were armed and dangerous. Reports are circulating here that some of those “peace activists” had gas masks and night vision devices, carried no identification papers, wore bullet-proof vests, and carried large amounts of cash. The background, the Hamas coup in Gaza and more than three thousand rockets into Israel from Gaza, is clear. The fact the Egypt has for three years (until the pressure mounted this week) refused to open its border to Gaza is understood at the UN. So the material was at hand to block the lynch mob and say we would accept only a statement that mourned the loss of life. We did not have to accept the word “condemn” or join in the call for another Goldstone Report.
No doubt the administration will claim it avoided a worse result, a Council resolution condemning Israel. To which the answer is, "not good enough." The U.S. has the power to block all anti-Israel moves in the Security Council, not just some of them, and to do so without agreeing to unfair, damaging compromises.
So why did we agree to the presidential statement? The White House did not wish to stand with Israel against this mob because it does not have a policy of solidarity with Israel. Rather, its policy is one of distancing and pressure. This was evident last week at the NPT conference as well, where a final statement that singled out Israel while ignoring Iran—precisely what the Bush administration blocked in 2005—was permitted by the United States. From this perspective, it is just as well that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not make it to Washington this week, where a phony love fest would have pictured him in the Obama embrace. The entire purpose of the invitation was to “change the atmosphere” and reverse the damage done during his last visit, where photos of Netanyahu with Obama were not permitted. There were no doubt many rabbis, Jewish leaders, and Democratic party pols prepared to beam and conclude that all the troubles are behind us.
But the events at the UN this week showed that they are not, because Obama policy has not changed. This reality is sinking in fast in Jerusalem, where the UN is understood as an excellent barometer of the White House—in any administration. Does the White House accept, indeed relish, the need to defend Israel against all comers—Pakistan, Turkey, the Arabs, weak-kneed Euro-dips, UN bureaucrats? Is this understood as a chance to show what America really stands for in the world? Or is Israel seen by the president as a burden, an albatross, a complication in his grand struggle to re-position the United States as a more “progressive” power?
We got the answer, again, this past week, and so did Israelis.
The Obama administration abandons Israel
BY Elliott Abrams
June 2, 2010 7:55 AM
At the United Nations, a lynch mob for Israel is always just a moment away. The Islamic countries are a reliable source of venom, led by the Arab bloc; what we used to call the “non-aligned” are all aligned against Israel and happy to join the fun; and the Europeans can be counted on for hand-wringing rather than staunch resistance. Only the United States, and a few brave allies like Canada and Australia, can be counted upon to oppose diplomatic lynchings year after year; and only the United States can stop them in the Security Council.
In the American government, it is never the State Department bureaucracy that wishes to brave the endless assaults at the UN. Normally the resistance comes not from the various regional bureaus or from the International Organizations bureau, where Israel is so often viewed as a giant pain, but from the White House and sometimes (example: George Shultz) the Secretary of State.
This week the mob formed again, instantly, after the Gaza flotilla disaster, reinforced this time by the leadership of Turkey, whose language at the UN was more vicious than that used by the Arabs. As usual there was really only one question once the mob began to gather. It is the question that arose repeatedly in the Bush years—when the Hamas leaders Sheik Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi were killed by Israel, when Israel acted in Gaza, when Israel put down the intifada in the West Bank, and during the 2006 war in Lebanon and the late 2008 fighting in Gaza: would Israel stand alone, or would the United States stand with her and prevent the lynching? Would the U.S., in Daniel Patrick Moynihan's memorable phrase, "join the jackals?"
This week the Obama administration answered the question: Yes we would, and Israel would stand alone. It is simple to block the kind of attack issued as a “President’s Statement” on behalf of the Council, for such a statement requires unanimity. The United States can just say “No,” and make it clear that orders have come from the White House and will not be changed. Then negotiations begin on a serious statement—or, there can be no statement at all. The killing of dozens of South Korean sailors by North Korea in an action that truly threatens the peace did not evoke the kind of action the Security Council took against Israel, proving that the UN does not always act, or act in the same way, when news flashes hit. Whether Israel is slammed depends on whether the United States is willing to take a stand.
On the Gaza flotilla, the Obama administration waffled and straddled. It agreed to a statement in which the United Nations condemned the “acts” that led to loss of life but did not say “We condemn Israel.” Presumably White House congratulated itself on this elision, but no one is fooled: the world media keep repeating that the Security Council condemned Israel, and in this case it is hard to argue. Yet it would have been simple to stop the mob had the White House wanted to. The facts were not in yet and indeed are still not in. The videos suggest that dozens of people (all Turks, it appears, but that too is not fully clear) on the boats were armed and dangerous. Reports are circulating here that some of those “peace activists” had gas masks and night vision devices, carried no identification papers, wore bullet-proof vests, and carried large amounts of cash. The background, the Hamas coup in Gaza and more than three thousand rockets into Israel from Gaza, is clear. The fact the Egypt has for three years (until the pressure mounted this week) refused to open its border to Gaza is understood at the UN. So the material was at hand to block the lynch mob and say we would accept only a statement that mourned the loss of life. We did not have to accept the word “condemn” or join in the call for another Goldstone Report.
No doubt the administration will claim it avoided a worse result, a Council resolution condemning Israel. To which the answer is, "not good enough." The U.S. has the power to block all anti-Israel moves in the Security Council, not just some of them, and to do so without agreeing to unfair, damaging compromises.
So why did we agree to the presidential statement? The White House did not wish to stand with Israel against this mob because it does not have a policy of solidarity with Israel. Rather, its policy is one of distancing and pressure. This was evident last week at the NPT conference as well, where a final statement that singled out Israel while ignoring Iran—precisely what the Bush administration blocked in 2005—was permitted by the United States. From this perspective, it is just as well that Prime Minister Netanyahu did not make it to Washington this week, where a phony love fest would have pictured him in the Obama embrace. The entire purpose of the invitation was to “change the atmosphere” and reverse the damage done during his last visit, where photos of Netanyahu with Obama were not permitted. There were no doubt many rabbis, Jewish leaders, and Democratic party pols prepared to beam and conclude that all the troubles are behind us.
But the events at the UN this week showed that they are not, because Obama policy has not changed. This reality is sinking in fast in Jerusalem, where the UN is understood as an excellent barometer of the White House—in any administration. Does the White House accept, indeed relish, the need to defend Israel against all comers—Pakistan, Turkey, the Arabs, weak-kneed Euro-dips, UN bureaucrats? Is this understood as a chance to show what America really stands for in the world? Or is Israel seen by the president as a burden, an albatross, a complication in his grand struggle to re-position the United States as a more “progressive” power?
We got the answer, again, this past week, and so did Israelis.
Flotilla
The Dersh:
"...Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.
First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.
The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.
The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.
Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:
"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP May 27, 2010.)
The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.
It is a close question whether "civilians" who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.
Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers boarding the vessel, they lost their status as innocent civilians. Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife and pipe wielding assailants. Lest there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the accompanying video and watch, as so-called peaceful "activists" repeatedly pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods.
Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force, especially when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel's rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger. Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self defense under comparable circumstances?
Notwithstanding the legality of Israel's actions, the international community has once again ganged up on Israel. In doing so, Israel's critics have failed to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense. None of these factors alone warrant condemnation, but the end result surely deserves scrutiny by Israeli policy makers. There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies on the one hand, and alleged violations of international law on the other hand. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law..."
"...Although the wisdom of Israel's actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is open to question, the legality of its actions is not. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed.
First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.
The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.
The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.
Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:
"This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians." (AFP May 27, 2010.)
The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.
It is a close question whether "civilians" who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.
Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers boarding the vessel, they lost their status as innocent civilians. Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife and pipe wielding assailants. Lest there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the accompanying video and watch, as so-called peaceful "activists" repeatedly pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods.
Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force, especially when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel's rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger. Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self defense under comparable circumstances?
Notwithstanding the legality of Israel's actions, the international community has once again ganged up on Israel. In doing so, Israel's critics have failed to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense. None of these factors alone warrant condemnation, but the end result surely deserves scrutiny by Israeli policy makers. There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies on the one hand, and alleged violations of international law on the other hand. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law..."
Flotilla
The Law...is on Israel's Side...
June 2, 2010
Marty Peretz
Look, I wish the Israeli raid on the so-called “Freedom Flotilla” had ended differently. Why, I ask, didn’t Israel’s navy disable the engine of the Mavi Marmara and drag the ship into port? Who knows? The engines of the other boats were apparently disabled—or so reliable sources say.
But, frankly, when some 800 men and women, distributed over six boats after weeks and weeks of preparation, are headed towards Gaza on the wings of slogan and hysteria, you don’t take that many chances. Somebody has trouble in mind.
The first five vessels were steered quietly to the Israeli port city of Ashdod, which means that neither their passengers nor the Israeli commandos were especially provocative. The sixth ship, which had 600 activist Turkish voyeurs on board, is an entirely different story. Sponsored by an organization labeled the Humanitarian Relief Fund (I.H.H.), it is said to have ties to Al Qaeda. Which would be logical since Al Qaeda is an ally of Hamas. An intriguing tripartite liaison.
But I.H.H. is also a satrap of the ever-more-Islamist government in Istanbul, which seems, in turn, to have volunteered itself as a front for jihadism everywhere, most especially in dealing with Iran and its nuclear ambitions. There is hardly a Muslim cause that the Erdogan regime in Ankara has not taken to heart and under its belt. (Recall that Turkey kept U.S. forces from traversing Turkish soil in 2003.)
Turkey was also once an important ally of Israel, which protected it from Syrian ambitions and gave it a non-Arab friend in a sea of Arabism. Israeli commerce and Israeli military cooperation—that is, modernizing Turkish armaments and units—will not continue much longer with this still-backward country. The Israelis will be sad to lose this friend, but, in fact, they have lost it already. And this is a reciprocal loss.
It wasn’t so long ago that Turkey—Erdogan’s Turkey—aspired to membership in the European Union. They can kiss that goodbye. The Turks may now be heroes on the Arab street, but they certainly aren’t heroes in Europe’s chancelleries, which prefer controversies on paper. And, much as some E.U. states have huffed and puffed about Israel, the Union is not anxious to add nearly 80 million Muslims to what would no longer be Europe.
It rings symbolically true that the two European countries first in line to bash Israel were the continent’s prime basket cases: Greece, whose fakeries and troubles have no end; and Spain, saddled with hundreds of thousands of non-working Muslim immigrants and two ongoing separatist movements, one of which (Catalonia) has much justice on its side. Both Greece and Spain are, of course, “progressive,” which is to say socialist (and unbelievably corrupt).
In Massachusetts, where I live, one young man—an Irish-American dual national who took part in the flotilla—has become a hero. His father is Joseph Bangert, a Cape Cod resident who, according to The Boston Globe, is a retired Marine and Vietnam veteran. Under a photograph of his son, a strapping reddish-haired youth of 28, is the Globe’s caption: Bangert “said he had not spoken with his son, Fiachra O’Luain, directly and has had to rely on news reports, information on Facebook, and a YouTube video.”
What was his seed doing in the eastern Mediterranean? This was not, after all, the Easter Rebellion. He was either a fighter, in which case he might have anticipated getting hurt in the excitement. Or he was a voyeur--an idealistic voyeur, to be sure--in which case, whatever ...
The propaganda for the flotilla has been in the works for months. Most of it was simply false. The poverty in Gaza is not qualitatively greater than that of your average Arab city. (Take Cairo. Or Amman, for that matter.) The markets are full of fruit and vegetables ... and flowers. Persistent pockets of deprivation exist in the historic refugee concentrations, which the Palestinian political class maintains as evidence of the ancient wrong. And, no, nobody is building big houses ... except again the elites, to the extent that they can smuggle materiel through the hundreds of tunnels which are perhaps less corrupt than the ordinary channels of commerce.
Who is behind this overhyped mission of mercy? And who is its beneficiary? It is none other than Hamas, the Gazan outpost of the global jihad, cousin of the Taliban, second cousin once-removed of Hezbollah. Wishing Hamas well, laboring for its success, is actually a crime against the Palestinians themselves. Of course, the new realists, so-called, will now beat the drums for a “pragmatic” opening to Hamas. It is an old trope for Robert Malley and his ilk. So, over the last two days, they have returned with the same message: Hamas is the future. Soon we will hear from James Baker, James Wolfensohn, even Paul Volcker, who knows a lot about some things but absolutely zero about the Middle East.
But Hamas is the past, the ugly past of ignorance. That does not mean it has no future. Hamas is the Palestinian counterpart of the movements of dread that now course throughout the world of Islam, and against which the West and moderate Muslims are struggling. The backward Muslims were Lost in the Sacred, as Dan Diner put it in his dazzling book-long essay, subtitled Why the Muslim World Stood Still. Pascal Bruckner depicts their Western sympathizers in The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism. Read these two books and you’ll understand the desperate and comradely pity educated men and women have for pitilessness.
Sympathy for Hamas is an odd reality in the Western world, and Israel needs to puzzle over how it has lost so much ground in its struggle against Arab and Muslim barbarism. I understand that the revival of a certain chic anti-Semitism has paved the way for the grosser anti-Semites and for the Muslim phantasts who deal in torment and salvation. Among these were the voyagers on the ship of fools who, a clip from Al Jazeera demonstrates, awaited the shores of Gaza ... or martyrdom.
The front page of the Financial Times reads “Israel faces global backlash.” Turkey, it says, “calls flotilla attack ‘inhuman.’ ” This is Turkey, mind you, which can’t admit to the Armenian genocide of nearly a century ago and won’t relent on the Kurds today. As it happens, the Security Council, meeting way into Tuesday morning, passed a balanced, even judicious, resolution that was, in true meaning, at least as much a rebuke to the Turks as it was a criticism of Israel. Neither Russia nor China stood in the way—at least not in the end—of fairness to Israel. And they did not try to exculpate Hamas or the macabre joy riders, including young Fiachra O’Luain.
And I must admit that this marks a turning point in the Obama administration’s attitude to Israel. Although it made some de rigeur criticisms, it was not about to make Jerusalem a sacrificial lamb for a faltering foreign policy. Susan Rice, with whom you know I have many problems, made all the appropriate visits and phone calls—bravely, conscientiously, and wisely. Maybe it was at least as much for the Palestinian Authority as it was for the Jewish state. Or for ultimate peace, unlikely as it is. But it was. Neither did anyone walk out of the “proximity talks,” non-talks as these are. And, for this, I assume the president is responsible. Mazel tov.
In fact, many people are having second thoughts … or are freeing their initial thoughts from the tiresome orthodoxies in smart parlors.
There were several smart pieces yesterday about the flotilla fallout. One was written by Michael Sean Winters in the lefty National Catholic Reporter. It is called “Judging Israel.” And it judges the Jewish state fairly. But perhaps the most important take on the episode appeared in The Daily Beast. The piece (“Israel Was Right”) was written by Leslie H. Gelb, a senior ideas man in the American foreign policy establishment, a former New York Times columnist, and the longtime president (now president emeritus) of the Council on Foreign Relations. Writes Gelb:
Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.
[…]
Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters.
On that note, here are the relevant passages from the Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality:
5.1.2 (3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.
5.1.2 (4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
The law is on Israel’s side. Ethics and history are on Israel’s side. Those who are on the side of Hamas are actually enemies of civilization.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Flotilla
Israel Was Right
by Leslie H. Gelb
May 31, 2010 | 11:48pm
Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.
The Israeli commandos who stormed the ship, where fighting erupted, badly mishandled the situation. But theirs was a mistake in pursuit of a legal goal, not a war crime. And as for calls for international investigations, they represent the usual hypocritical nonsense that will go nowhere. Except for those who routinely fool themselves about the judiciousness and effectiveness of action by the United Nations or the European Union, everyone understands their "investigations" will amount to nothing. Only the United States might do something useful—if the White House would only seize quickly the practical solution staring it in the face.
Israel has every right to protect itself under international law, including by blockades in international waters.
Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters. There would be a general violation only if the hostile actions against the ships took place in waters under the jurisdiction of another sovereign state. Thus, for example, if the Israelis stopped the ships in Egyptian waters, that would have been a violation.
On a more tactical level, violations could occur if the force used to block and board were "disproportionate" to the circumstances. Those friendly to Gaza aboard the ship claim disproportionality, but this is not supported by the video available. In any event, and as a practical matter, no one is going to be able to prove exactly what happened on that ship Sunday night. Nonetheless, the overriding facts remain that Gazan leaders proclaim their goal is to destroy Israel, have tried for years to do so by missile attacks and terrorism, and that Israel has every right to protect itself under international law, including by blockades in international waters.
As for what the planners of this "humanitarian" flotilla had in mind, just listen to what the leaders of this enterprise have been saying. Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, told The New York Times that the Israeli claim that the people aboard the ship intended violence was preposterous. She argued that it was inconceivable that the civilian passengers on board would have been "waiting up to fire on the Israeli military, with all its might." By that keen logic, no Palestinian ever would have fired upon a militarily superior Israeli. We seem to know otherwise.
Or listen to Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement leaders. She said on Sunday before the incident that the boats would steam forward to Gaza "until they either disable our boats or jump on board." How on earth did she expect that strategy would not lead to violence?
On what remains of the old Lehrer News Hour, Adam Shapiro, another Free Gaza guy, said Monday night that the flotilla aimed to break the blockade as well as deliver aid. Well, of course, no one asked him how he thought the blockade would be broken without violence. It couldn't—unless the flotilla escaped detection. And with six ships in the flotilla, that was highly unlikely.
So, the Free guys and gals achieved their real purpose—to provoke the Israelis, hope they did stupid things (which they did by boarding the ship with commandos who weren't prepared to do this job), and stirred international outrage.
Ah, the international outrage. Turks, French, all leaders large and small condemned Israel and called for international commissions. Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, said he was "shocked" by the attack. He condemned the violence, and added: "It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation."
Well, where was all that international outrage and demand for explanations and retribution when the North Koreans sunk a South Korean ship? Where was it when the Gazans attacked Israel? Where, when Afghan men flogged their women for not wearing veils? Where, when Saudi Arabia funds terrorists around the world? This international outrage is highly selective, isn't it? The one consolation is that the international community, such as it has become, doesn't get anything of value done.
Which puts matters in the American lap, as usual. There is a reasonable solution to this terrible dilemma: The Gazan people are in need of food and medicine, and Israel must protect itself against Gazan terrorists. President Obama should propose this simple arrangement: First, those wishing to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza agree to land aircraft, dock ships, and use land checkpoints all reasonably designated by Israel for inspection of contents. Second, Israel agrees to inspect cargoes within two to three days, and allow all humanitarian goods to proceed to Gaza immediately.
The United States surely has the power to accomplish this. It would prevent much needless killing and haggling—and phony posturing around the world. And if one or both sides rejected the deal, then that one, or the both of them, are on their own.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
by Leslie H. Gelb
May 31, 2010 | 11:48pm
Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this "humanitarian" flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much "to break" Israel's blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.
The Israeli commandos who stormed the ship, where fighting erupted, badly mishandled the situation. But theirs was a mistake in pursuit of a legal goal, not a war crime. And as for calls for international investigations, they represent the usual hypocritical nonsense that will go nowhere. Except for those who routinely fool themselves about the judiciousness and effectiveness of action by the United Nations or the European Union, everyone understands their "investigations" will amount to nothing. Only the United States might do something useful—if the White House would only seize quickly the practical solution staring it in the face.
Israel has every right to protect itself under international law, including by blockades in international waters.
Regarding international law, blockades are quite legal. The United States and Britain were at war with Germany and Japan and blockaded them. I can't remember international lawyers saying those blockades were illegal—even though they took place on the high seas in international waters. There would be a general violation only if the hostile actions against the ships took place in waters under the jurisdiction of another sovereign state. Thus, for example, if the Israelis stopped the ships in Egyptian waters, that would have been a violation.
On a more tactical level, violations could occur if the force used to block and board were "disproportionate" to the circumstances. Those friendly to Gaza aboard the ship claim disproportionality, but this is not supported by the video available. In any event, and as a practical matter, no one is going to be able to prove exactly what happened on that ship Sunday night. Nonetheless, the overriding facts remain that Gazan leaders proclaim their goal is to destroy Israel, have tried for years to do so by missile attacks and terrorism, and that Israel has every right to protect itself under international law, including by blockades in international waters.
As for what the planners of this "humanitarian" flotilla had in mind, just listen to what the leaders of this enterprise have been saying. Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, told The New York Times that the Israeli claim that the people aboard the ship intended violence was preposterous. She argued that it was inconceivable that the civilian passengers on board would have been "waiting up to fire on the Israeli military, with all its might." By that keen logic, no Palestinian ever would have fired upon a militarily superior Israeli. We seem to know otherwise.
Or listen to Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement leaders. She said on Sunday before the incident that the boats would steam forward to Gaza "until they either disable our boats or jump on board." How on earth did she expect that strategy would not lead to violence?
On what remains of the old Lehrer News Hour, Adam Shapiro, another Free Gaza guy, said Monday night that the flotilla aimed to break the blockade as well as deliver aid. Well, of course, no one asked him how he thought the blockade would be broken without violence. It couldn't—unless the flotilla escaped detection. And with six ships in the flotilla, that was highly unlikely.
So, the Free guys and gals achieved their real purpose—to provoke the Israelis, hope they did stupid things (which they did by boarding the ship with commandos who weren't prepared to do this job), and stirred international outrage.
Ah, the international outrage. Turks, French, all leaders large and small condemned Israel and called for international commissions. Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary-General, said he was "shocked" by the attack. He condemned the violence, and added: "It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation."
Well, where was all that international outrage and demand for explanations and retribution when the North Koreans sunk a South Korean ship? Where was it when the Gazans attacked Israel? Where, when Afghan men flogged their women for not wearing veils? Where, when Saudi Arabia funds terrorists around the world? This international outrage is highly selective, isn't it? The one consolation is that the international community, such as it has become, doesn't get anything of value done.
Which puts matters in the American lap, as usual. There is a reasonable solution to this terrible dilemma: The Gazan people are in need of food and medicine, and Israel must protect itself against Gazan terrorists. President Obama should propose this simple arrangement: First, those wishing to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza agree to land aircraft, dock ships, and use land checkpoints all reasonably designated by Israel for inspection of contents. Second, Israel agrees to inspect cargoes within two to three days, and allow all humanitarian goods to proceed to Gaza immediately.
The United States surely has the power to accomplish this. It would prevent much needless killing and haggling—and phony posturing around the world. And if one or both sides rejected the deal, then that one, or the both of them, are on their own.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)