The latest incident off Gaza in which the Israelis boarded what seem to have been humanitarian ships and used force which resulted in the death of nine people is almost beyond comprehension. The reports are so muddled that it seems very difficult to get an accurate picture of the events. However, one thing is very clear. Israel now looks like a bully using force against people who had only humanitarian intentions of helping the Palestinians suffering in Gaza. And, of course, Hamas looks like the victim in chief. It does not matter if the blockade is legal. In the court of international opinion, Israel is seen as wrong. It amazes me that a people who were victims for so much of their history elect leaders who seem willing to turn their adversaries into victims.
Zach Mag sent this opinion piece from the NYT. What do you think? I really, really wish I could be in a Conflicts class today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/opinion/02oz.html?hp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm not sure if it is deliberate on both sides, but I don't think we have a complete explanation from either side. Was there a restriction against all aid ships? But the ship was in international waters. Why did the Israelis rapel down from helicopters? Why were the aid workers armed, if they truly were? Why would the Israelis board a ship in international waters? What were they expecting to find? It's said they are expecting that arms are being smuggled in through the aid shipments. Perhaps they can have the ships inspected first in an Israeli port. The situation is awful for the people who died, if they truly were going to help the people in Gaza, and even worse for the people in Gaza who are struggling to live. The piece about the use of force is compelling; Israel seems always to want to hit back first, but from a moral and ethical viewpoint, it's wrong and only brings them more problems. Being the bully is not the solution.
ReplyDeleteThat is one of the most recent articles I could find trying to shed some more light on the whole situation from Israel's perspective: http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/05/3105.htm
ReplyDeleteClearly when a LEGAL armed force goes to a ship to try to find out what that ship is carrying and is immediately attacked by people wielding weapons, they have a right to defend themselves. People are asking why Israel dropped on the boats in the first place, the reason was, because THEY HAD A RIGHT TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.
Israel has always had the right to defend itself and in this case, they chose a more proactive method. No matter what the group was calling itself, they willingly and intentionally violated a country's laws and made it clear they intended to do so, which Israel wanted to stop for very good reason; they had absolutely no idea what was on those ships. Had the people simply let the Israelis on to look around and not initiated the violence, then I am sure we would have heard a little blurb about this whole situation and that's all.
In addition, there were legal ways to get the aid to the Palestinians, if that was the group's true goal, by working with either Israel or Egypt to make sure it got in the right hands. Instead, the group chose to flaunt the laws and intentionally went against a sovereign nation's wishes. If a third party group took some ships and went to Gitmo with the intention of helping the people there, do you think the U.S. would stand for it? Absolutely not. Now, I am not saying that all Palestinians are terrorists, far from it, I have always been in favor of a 2-state solution and would say the greater majority of them are fine people who just want to live their life in peace. However, there are enough people that could have taken this aid and used it against Israel, no matter what it was, that Israel at least had a reason to want to make sure it was not explosives or anything of that sort and try to make sure it entered via the correct means. By intentionally trying to defy a sovereign nations wishes, these "humanitarians" caused much more stress then was needed.
Jed Trott commented:
ReplyDelete"Since you asked it seems like more of the same to me. The Israeli's hate
Hamas. And they hate those that are sympathetic to them. They have constructed
an argument for themselves that allows them to treat the Palestinians in the
Gaza strip and West Bank inhumanly and they so far have had the ability to do
so. The Palestinians hate Israel and they in turn have an argument that allows
them to kill Israeli's without remorse. Obviously this does not mean all
Israeli's or all Palestinians but there are enough to prevent the possibility of
peace. We can go into the details about who exactly was on the boat and what
exactly the Israelis' could have done to prevent the escalation of violence but
I believe that until the problem above is settled through forgiveness there can
be no peace. Although it would probably help if outside players didn't keep
interfering."
To Legal Techie,
ReplyDeleteFrom what I heard on NPR this morning, groups who have gone through the legal channels established by Israel have been waiting over a year to have medical equipment including x-ray machines and dialysis equipment delivered.
It's Josh Ms. H., Legal Techie was an old blog name that popped up when I said to use Google.
ReplyDeleteThat's true, so maybe they should have tried that method to bring to light how slow the process was, not by trying to break through with the method they used and armed as they were. I'm still confused why they came armed if they were humanitarians.
Here is a post from Debbie Cesario, Conflicts
ReplyDeleteclass # 1:
Debbie Cesario
I tried posting to the blog yesterday, but couldn't. To summarize my position, it's the same as it was when I was in Conflicts Class 15 years ago- I support human rights for the Palestinians and condemn abuse of power by Israel.
If I may offer my opinion of the situation:
ReplyDeleteThe people on the aid ships decided they were going to break Israel (and Egypt)'s blockade on Gaza by running their ship through it. It was win-win for them: if they got through, then the blockade couldn't possibly be maintained any longer (more ships would do the same thing). If they were stopped by Israel, it would very negative PR for Israel since the flotilla organizers carefully branded themselves as humanitarians (in fact, they were political activists seeking to break the blockade). this agenda is proven by the fact that israel formally offered to deliver the aid cargo through Ashdod under the activists' supervision but they REFUSED and tried to run the blockade.
What actually ended up happening was scenario #2 from above in its worst possible form. Israel boarded (with paintball guns to try to avoid using too much force) and the activists attacked the soldiers, provoking the use of lethal force and creating an immensely horrible PR and diplomatic crisis for Israel. I would not be surprised if attacking the soldiers was part of their formal plan, given how effectively it provoked the exact response that would hurt Israel the most.
Anyway, where I come out on all of this is that the activists had a very concrete strategy--- break the blockade or strike a massive PR blow-- and executed flawlessly on it. Israel's main failure was in not anticipating this strategy and its lynch-mob-to-provoke-deadly-counterforce tactic, and in sending their soldiers in one-by-one to a gang wielding metal bars and knives. This was total strategic failure on Israel's part, they should have executed better.
But anyone who does not understand the activists' agenda in provoking this event is being naive. Perhaps you can argue that the blockade itself is unjust. But Israel can equally argue the opposite (vis a vis the smuggling of weapons into Gaza) and like any sovereign nation has the right to defend its blockade. there is a fine line between nonviolent protest and unlawful action. These activists were no flower-holding hippies, and this event is in no way morally comparable to something like a Kent State.
I have two things to comment on this.
ReplyDeleteThe first is that this seems to encapsulate the whole situation in Gaza. According to 'This Week', 600 of the people on the ship were peaceful activists. 75 were mercenaries with ties to terrorist organizations. If we suppose for this example that the ship members represent all of Palestine, how can we really say Israel should not protect themselves from those 75. But it leaves out what happens to the 600. It's like the metal detectors in Central High School. We don't (or didn't) have to go through because we did anything wrong. We had to go through because we fit the same profile of two kids halfway across the country who shot and killed their teachers and fellow students. No we don't want it to happen again. But in exchange, are we all to be treated as criminals on a daily basis?
My second point is a quote by Haruki Murakami, a Japanese novelist, from his speech in Jerusalem as he accepted a literary award.
"Between a high, solid wall and an egg that breaks against it, I will always stand on the side of the egg."
Yes, no matter how right the wall may be and how wrong the egg, I will stand with the egg. Someone else will have to decide what is right and what is wrong; perhaps time or history will decide. If there were a novelist who, for whatever reason, wrote works standing with the wall, of what value would such works be?
What is the meaning of this metaphor? In some cases, it is all too simple and clear. Bombers and tanks and rockets and white phosphorus shells are that high, solid wall. The eggs are the unarmed civilians who are crushed and burned and shot by them. This is one meaning of the metaphor.
This is not all, though. It carries a deeper meaning. Think of it this way. Each of us is, more or less, an egg. Each of us is a unique, irreplaceable soul enclosed in a fragile shell. This is true of me, and it is true of each of you. And each of us, to a greater or lesser degree, is confronting a high, solid wall. The wall has a name: It is The System. The System is supposed to protect us, but sometimes it takes on a life of its own, and then it begins to kill us and cause us to kill others - coldly, efficiently, systematically.
If you would like to look up the whole speech, just google Haruki Murakami Egg.
- Ann L