I feel compelled to comment on the current political situation in Israel vis-a-vis the flotilla. The current state of affairs in Israel is complex, but in very basic terms, this is my understanding of what happened: a flotilla, sailing in the Mediterranean Sea, was attempting to break Israel's blockade of the Gaza strip by carrying humanitarian supplies to Gaza. In an effort to resolve the situation peacefully, the Israelis offered to reroute the ship to an Israeli port and transfer the humanitarian supplies via land to the Gaza Strip. The passengers aboard the ship rejected this offer. Israeli requests to the ship to stop were also rejected. At this point, diplomatic options exhausted, Israel decided on a military solution. Soldiers were lowered onto the ship from ropes by helicopters. The passenger aboard the ship reacted violently, attacking the soldiers with steel rods, knives, and clubs and attempted to throw the soldiers off of the boat. Fearing for their lives, the soldiers responded by opening fire, resulting in the deaths of nine people. The ship surrendered and was rerouted. Passengers aboard the ship were taken into custody. At present, there are ongoing efforts to return the passengers of the flotilla to their home countries. For diplomatic reasons, Israel has decided not to prosecute anybody aboard the ship.
Before entering into any of the political ramifications of this event, I would like to make clear that I deeply regret the loss of human life that occurred aboard the flotilla. The loss of any life is tragic and irreparable.
With that said, clearly, this event has damaged Israel's stature in the eyes of the international community. The facile, overly-simplified narrative that Israel killed passengers attempting to provide humanitarian aid is readily believed and has widespread currency. Demonstrators are taking to the streets to protest Israel and Israeli actions in countries around the world. Foreign governments have censured Israel, with more on the way. More specifically, Israel's diplomatic relationship with Turkey has been severely harmed. The flotilla has been a PR nightmare for Israel.
In the days and weeks ahead, we will see how this event ramifies across the globe. After this event, I am honestly very concerned about where Israel's position in the international community is headed. For those who are so predisposed, the attack will serve as a demonstration of Israeli depravity. Surely, Israel will receive a lot of criticism in the United Nations--resolutions condemning its actions and so forth. More problematic and dangerous, I fear, will be the response by those in the Middle East who are looking for an excuse to attack Israel. For those who want to demonize Israel, this is the perfect opportunity.
But I also fear that Israel's historically strong alliance with the US will be tested. The fact that Netanyahu canceled his planned meeting with Obama the day after the occurrence is not a good sign. More promising would have been a display of sustained partnership and support. Up to this point, Obama and Netanyahu haven't exactly been best friends, and I worry that this will sour their already fragile relationship. Additionally, yesterday, the New York Times published a scathing editorial about Israel's actions. The revelation that one of the people killed aboard the ship was an American citizen further complicates matters. I feel that there is a growing feeling in America, particularly from the left, that Israel has gone too far, that Israel has crossed the line. I am concerned that America will bow to significant international pressure and abandon an increasingly inconvenient Israeli partnership.
This brings us to my analysis of the situation. What do I think? What should Israel have done? I believe that, in essence, Israel was in a no-win situation. The key point, and the one that I want to stress, is this: prior to boarding the boat, Israel did everything that it could diplomatically to transfer the humanitarian aid aboard the boat to Gaza--provided that no weapons were transferred to Hamas. "Organizers of the flotilla repeatedly rejected Israeli offers to transfer its cargo to Gaza once it was inspected for military contraband" (Michael Oren). After exhausting diplomacy, Israel's options were simple. Either allow the flotilla to land, thus breaking the blockade, or use force. Both options were odious.
The so-called 'freedom flotilla' was no such thing. Instead, it was an insidious attempt to defame Israel in the eyes of the international community. The passengers' actual concern for the well-being of the people of Gaza was secondary, to say the least. The main organization behind the flotilla was the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Fund (IHH). This ostensibly charitable association's main purpose is to divert resources to terror activity. The IHH has close ties with Hamas, al-Qaida, and other militant Islamic organizations.
Israel's policy to inspect the cargo of incoming ships makes perfect sense--especially given the nature of Hamas. Why did the passengers aboard the ship reject this option? If your mission is to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, why would you have a problem if somebody made sure that you weren't bringing military contraband into the country? The answer should be obvious.
Moreover, the force that Israel used was for the purpose of self-defense; the passengers aboard the boat--with knives, clubs, and bars--struck first. When they landed aboard the boat, the Israeli soldiers did not have their weapons drawn. Soldiers only resorted to violent measures once their lives were put in jeopardy.
If Israel had allowed the boat to dock off the coast of Gaza, without inspecting it, the blockade would have been effectively circumvented. With this as a precedent, subsequent boats could bring rockets and other weapons to Hamas.
And the Israeli blockade of Gaza is both necessary and justified. Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, is a violent terrorist organization that rules through brute force and executes its opponents. It refuses to recognize agreements between the PA and Israel and even denies Israel's right to exist. During the Gaza initiative of 2008 and 2009, Hamas tried to maximize the number of its civilian casualties to harm Israel's reputation. Since 2006, Hamas has fired over 10,000 rockets into Israel. Hamas has absolutely no intention of making peace with Israel and will not stop its resistance until Israel is destroyed. This is the reality of who we are dealing with. The blockade exists in order to weaken, through nonviolent means, this vile, malevolent organization.
Of course, I regret the state of the people of Gaza. I wish that something could be done to ameliorate their condition. 1.5 million people are confined to an area that is 25 miles long and 3 to 7 miles wide; the population density of Gaza is over ten times that of Israel and over a hundred times that of the US. Israel regulates the basic foodstuffs and medicine that enter Gaza. Basic goods, such as notebooks, writing utensils, and chocolate, are not allowed in. Some have estimated that 10 percent suffer from malnutrition. And, of course, the people of Gaza are governed by Hamas.
And therein lies the problem. If the Gaza strip were governed by a rational government which protected human rights--rather than by a terrorist organization--then I am sure that things would be much better. As it stands, Israel is forced to maintain the blockade, which results in such terrible living conditions, in order to defend itself. The blame for the state of the Gaza Strip lies not with Israel, but with Hamas.
Is the current situation tenable? Can Israel maintain the blockade in the face of international pressure and the possibility of more 'freedom flotillas'? What will happen to this fragile state of affairs? I am not sure. I wish some workable solution could be reached which improves the condition of the people of Gaza, while maintaining Israeli security. I wish that insidious attempts to delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the international community were less successful. I wish that the reality of Israel's situation was more widely understood.
I hope that in the days and weeks ahead the political fallout from the flotilla is contained and that Netanyahu and his government manage to successfully negotiate the difficult terrain ahead. And I certainly hope that, for the sake of both Israel and those aboard, more 'freedom flotillas' do not occur. We cannot handle another such catastrophe.![]()
Before entering into any of the political ramifications of this event, I would like to make clear that I deeply regret the loss of human life that occurred aboard the flotilla. The loss of any life is tragic and irreparable.
With that said, clearly, this event has damaged Israel's stature in the eyes of the international community. The facile, overly-simplified narrative that Israel killed passengers attempting to provide humanitarian aid is readily believed and has widespread currency. Demonstrators are taking to the streets to protest Israel and Israeli actions in countries around the world. Foreign governments have censured Israel, with more on the way. More specifically, Israel's diplomatic relationship with Turkey has been severely harmed. The flotilla has been a PR nightmare for Israel.
In the days and weeks ahead, we will see how this event ramifies across the globe. After this event, I am honestly very concerned about where Israel's position in the international community is headed. For those who are so predisposed, the attack will serve as a demonstration of Israeli depravity. Surely, Israel will receive a lot of criticism in the United Nations--resolutions condemning its actions and so forth. More problematic and dangerous, I fear, will be the response by those in the Middle East who are looking for an excuse to attack Israel. For those who want to demonize Israel, this is the perfect opportunity.
But I also fear that Israel's historically strong alliance with the US will be tested. The fact that Netanyahu canceled his planned meeting with Obama the day after the occurrence is not a good sign. More promising would have been a display of sustained partnership and support. Up to this point, Obama and Netanyahu haven't exactly been best friends, and I worry that this will sour their already fragile relationship. Additionally, yesterday, the New York Times published a scathing editorial about Israel's actions. The revelation that one of the people killed aboard the ship was an American citizen further complicates matters. I feel that there is a growing feeling in America, particularly from the left, that Israel has gone too far, that Israel has crossed the line. I am concerned that America will bow to significant international pressure and abandon an increasingly inconvenient Israeli partnership.
This brings us to my analysis of the situation. What do I think? What should Israel have done? I believe that, in essence, Israel was in a no-win situation. The key point, and the one that I want to stress, is this: prior to boarding the boat, Israel did everything that it could diplomatically to transfer the humanitarian aid aboard the boat to Gaza--provided that no weapons were transferred to Hamas. "Organizers of the flotilla repeatedly rejected Israeli offers to transfer its cargo to Gaza once it was inspected for military contraband" (Michael Oren). After exhausting diplomacy, Israel's options were simple. Either allow the flotilla to land, thus breaking the blockade, or use force. Both options were odious.
The so-called 'freedom flotilla' was no such thing. Instead, it was an insidious attempt to defame Israel in the eyes of the international community. The passengers' actual concern for the well-being of the people of Gaza was secondary, to say the least. The main organization behind the flotilla was the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Fund (IHH). This ostensibly charitable association's main purpose is to divert resources to terror activity. The IHH has close ties with Hamas, al-Qaida, and other militant Islamic organizations.
Israel's policy to inspect the cargo of incoming ships makes perfect sense--especially given the nature of Hamas. Why did the passengers aboard the ship reject this option? If your mission is to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza, why would you have a problem if somebody made sure that you weren't bringing military contraband into the country? The answer should be obvious.
Moreover, the force that Israel used was for the purpose of self-defense; the passengers aboard the boat--with knives, clubs, and bars--struck first. When they landed aboard the boat, the Israeli soldiers did not have their weapons drawn. Soldiers only resorted to violent measures once their lives were put in jeopardy.
If Israel had allowed the boat to dock off the coast of Gaza, without inspecting it, the blockade would have been effectively circumvented. With this as a precedent, subsequent boats could bring rockets and other weapons to Hamas.
And the Israeli blockade of Gaza is both necessary and justified. Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, is a violent terrorist organization that rules through brute force and executes its opponents. It refuses to recognize agreements between the PA and Israel and even denies Israel's right to exist. During the Gaza initiative of 2008 and 2009, Hamas tried to maximize the number of its civilian casualties to harm Israel's reputation. Since 2006, Hamas has fired over 10,000 rockets into Israel. Hamas has absolutely no intention of making peace with Israel and will not stop its resistance until Israel is destroyed. This is the reality of who we are dealing with. The blockade exists in order to weaken, through nonviolent means, this vile, malevolent organization.
Of course, I regret the state of the people of Gaza. I wish that something could be done to ameliorate their condition. 1.5 million people are confined to an area that is 25 miles long and 3 to 7 miles wide; the population density of Gaza is over ten times that of Israel and over a hundred times that of the US. Israel regulates the basic foodstuffs and medicine that enter Gaza. Basic goods, such as notebooks, writing utensils, and chocolate, are not allowed in. Some have estimated that 10 percent suffer from malnutrition. And, of course, the people of Gaza are governed by Hamas.
And therein lies the problem. If the Gaza strip were governed by a rational government which protected human rights--rather than by a terrorist organization--then I am sure that things would be much better. As it stands, Israel is forced to maintain the blockade, which results in such terrible living conditions, in order to defend itself. The blame for the state of the Gaza Strip lies not with Israel, but with Hamas.
Is the current situation tenable? Can Israel maintain the blockade in the face of international pressure and the possibility of more 'freedom flotillas'? What will happen to this fragile state of affairs? I am not sure. I wish some workable solution could be reached which improves the condition of the people of Gaza, while maintaining Israeli security. I wish that insidious attempts to delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the international community were less successful. I wish that the reality of Israel's situation was more widely understood.
I hope that in the days and weeks ahead the political fallout from the flotilla is contained and that Netanyahu and his government manage to successfully negotiate the difficult terrain ahead. And I certainly hope that, for the sake of both Israel and those aboard, more 'freedom flotillas' do not occur. We cannot handle another such catastrophe.
