Athens - As a passenger on the upcoming U.S. Boat to Gaza -- the Audacity of Hope -- I read with keen interest Ethan Bronner's account in the New York Times last week of Israeli military preparations to confront the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.
Not surprisingly, Israeli officials cited by the Times were putting out mixed messages.
On the one hand, a top naval official told foreign journalists: "We will do anything we have to do to prevent a boat from breaking the blockade."
On the other hand, the Times reports that Israel's navy says it will do everything it can to avoid close contact with activists on board the freedom flotilla.
Moreover, the Israeli naval officer who briefed foreign journalists conceded that he did not believe that the coming flotilla would contain arms. The same naval officer further conceded that some [sic] of those on board the ships were peace activists, according to the Times' account.
But the naval officer asserted that these peace activists were naïve because "extremists will set the tone" if Israeli commandos board the ships. He also asserted that Israel needed to enforce the blockade indiscriminately to defend against weapons imports by future flotillas.
I'm sorry I wasn't able to attend this press conference. I would like to ask some follow-up questions of my distinguished friend in the Israeli navy, who thinks me naïve.
If you concede that we are peace activists who are not carrying weapons, what exactly is the urgency to confront us with force? Why not just let us proceed to Gaza unmolested? Does it pass a "straight face test," as Speaker Boehner might say, to claim that it will set a horrible international legal precedent binding the Israeli government if you were to let us pass unmolested to Gaza, having conceded that we are peace activists who are not carrying weapons?
If you are concerned that "extremists will set the tone" if Israeli commandos board the ships, isn't it wholly within your power to prevent this outcome, by not ordering that Israeli commandos board the ships?
Furthermore, if you concede that we are peace activists, doesn't that mean that you concede that we are not "extremists"? Peace activists aren't "extremists," are we?
If you concede that we are not "extremists," and you are concerned that "extremists will set the tone," doesn't that argue against blocking our communications, or arresting us and holding us incommunicado, or confiscating our communications equipment, as happened to passengers on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla last year? Because if you silence us, you prevent us from speaking on our own behalf, thereby facilitating the outcome that you say you wish to avoid. Again, avoiding the outcome that "extremists will set the tone" is wholly within your power.
When I first visited Ramallah in 1986, I heard a story from Palestinians there that is quite relevant to the present impasse. As you will recall, at that time the display of the Palestinian flag was forbidden in the West Bank, by order of the Israeli military. A pattern was established: when Palestinian youths wanted to confront the soldiers of the occupation, they would hoist the Palestinian flag. Soldiers would come to disperse the demonstrators, the demonstrators would throw rocks at the soldiers, the soldiers would respond with weapons, often with live fire. Often demonstrators would be seriously injured or killed in these confrontations, provoking more demonstrations and more Israeli military crackdowns not only on demonstrators, but on the overall civilian population, with curfews, school closings, and so on.
One day, there was a new Israeli military commander for the Ramallah area. I am sorry that I don't know the details of this commander's background. But here's how I imagine him: older, a reservist perhaps, with a wife and children in Israel, maybe even a little bit sympathetic to the young Palestinian demonstrators and their desire to be free. This Israeli military commander decided to try an experiment: what would happen if, when I get the report that Palestinian youths in the area under my command have hoisted the Palestinian flag, I don't send any Israeli soldiers there?
Well, what do you think happened? What happened was this: the Palestinian youths in Ramallah would hoist the Palestinian flag, they would chant and sing, they would wait for the Israeli soldiers, and when the Israeli soldiers never arrived, the demonstrators would get bored, declare victory, and go home. No rocks, no shooting, no violence, no killing, no injuries, no curfew, no schools closed. As a consequence of this Israeli military commander's common-sense policy, there was a significant decrease in violence in the Ramallah area. Of course, there was a downside to this policy: the prohibition on public display of the Palestinian flag was not enforced. But, as it turned out, enforcement of this prohibition was not so important to "Israeli security" after all.
Eventually that military commander was rotated out, and another commander was rotated in, and the new commander was not so enlightened, and "things went back to normal." The Palestinian flag was hoisted, soldiers came, rocks were thrown, demonstrators were shot.
This story illustrates, I think, that Israeli military officers have the opportunity to use good judgment and common sense in evaluating which actions they should take to "promote Israeli security." Taking extreme actions in response to demands for Palestinian freedom does not make Israel more secure.
The logic of taking extreme actions in response to protest is seductive: if we show that we are very tough, people will stop resisting us.
But to think that this logic will work in the present situation is, dare I say it, naïve. It is far too late for that.
What was the result of the Israeli military attack on last year's flotilla? Did peace activists say, oh dear, now that we see that the Israeli military is very tough, we had better not send any more flotillas?
No, that was not the result. The result was that peace activists said: we should send an even larger flotilla of ships, with boats from more countries, including our American boat, the Audacity of Hope.
After the attack on last year's flotilla and the resulting international outcry not just against the attack on the flotilla but also against the blockade of Gaza, the Israeli government announced that the blockade on Gaza would be eased, and since then more goods have been let in to Gaza. Exports from Gaza remain largely blocked; restrictions on Gazans' travel to the West Bank and East Jerusalem for work, study, and medical care remain; imports of construction materials remain largely blocked; restrictions on Gaza's farming and fishing remain. Unemployment in Gaza is among the highest in the world, the UN reports.
But consider those restrictions on Gaza that were in fact eased last year following the international outcry: either those restrictions were necessary for Israeli security, or they were not.
If those restrictions were in fact necessary for Israeli security, then Israeli government officials endangered Israeli security by removing them, simply because the world was complaining. Will any Israeli official stand up and claim this?
If those restrictions were not necessary for Israeli security, then for years Israeli government maintained restrictions on Gaza's civilian population which were not justified by security concerns, simply because they wanted to punish the population and could get away with doing so, because international protest was not sufficient to overturn these restrictions.
If these restrictions were not necessary for Israel's security -- and it seems obvious that they were not -- then their removal shows that Israeli government claims that restrictions on Gaza are necessary for Israel's security cannot be taken as holy writ. Since governments refuse to act, organizing flotillas and other forms of international protest against the siege of Gaza is therefore a mitzvah, an obligation. People of conscience around the world have an obligation to organize and support such protests until all restrictions on Gaza not directly related to Israeli security -- that is, not directly related to suspected arms shipments to Gaza -- are removed. And the history suggests that such protests will continue until they are no longer necessary.
I urge my friend the Israeli naval officer to get on the right side of history, and to use his influence not only to oppose an Israeli military attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, but to support the lifting of the blockade of Gaza.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
here is a bit commentary from some of your fellow-travellers in Israel
(that would be the political opposition to Netanyahu's right wing government? let us remember that Israel is a vibrant democracy and as such has the obligatory political opposition required)
"You know that the flotilla is a test for Israel. You believe that it's a test of your ability to stop the boats before they reach anchor in Gaza. You see it as a test of your ability to keep the siege of Gaza in place, and to fight against the delegitimization of Israel. It's a test of the siege, all right, but not at all the test you think it is.
"There is nearly nothing which more effectively delegitimizes Israel - and makes Israel look more like an uncaring blockhead state - than does the siege of Gaza. The siege benefits Hamas in a thousand ways and Israel in none. But there is one thing that does the work of delegitimization even better: attacking civilians in order to protect the siege.
"The cargo of the flotilla consists of this message: Israel is callous, brutal, insensitive to civilians, heedless of human rights, wholly in the wrong."
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/this-time-israel-can-pass-the-test-of-the-gaza-flotilla-1.369862
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/gaza-flotilla-drives-israel-into-a-sea-of-stupidity-1.292959
"As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to econoffs on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge"
funny part is hasbara lot just keeps trying they are like clones from star wars who keep recycling...
I really can't imagine the kind of evil that is in the mind of such a person
The racism against the Palestinian people displayed by the Israelis, the Americans,and even the other Arab groups really is shocking.
Its one thing to play word games and not recognize the people as a state. or even to wage war and practice discrimination. But to ban humanitarian aid really is the lowest of the low
If a better example of the utter moral collapse of the human rights community exists, it would be hard to find. The statement is one of passionless brevity — just a few sentences long — and expresses no opinion on the standing of Hamas, or on its 2006 raid into Israel, or on the legitimacy of its goals and methods. Remarkably, it doesn’t even demand the release of Gilad Shalit. The most that this allegedly courageous and principled human rights community could bring itself to say to the terrorists of Hamas is that they should improve the conditions of Shalit’s imprisonment.
Even the Goldstone Report demanded Shalit’s release. Human rights groups, especially when it comes to condemning Israel, invoke what they believe to be the inflexible requirements of international law as a guide to matters of war and peace. Their only source of credibility is their adherence to principle. Yet here these same champions of international law have lost their voices, and their outrage, when it comes to making what should be the easiest of judgments: That it is against international law to raid a sovereign state for the purpose of abducting its citizens, that Shalit’s imprisonment is barbaric and utterly without legitimacy, and that Hamas must release him immediately.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.PDF
found both sides committed "war crimes" Just that Israel's were hundred times more serious and disproportionate
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/24-7
On the more practical and non mystical side could you run down a list of nations Israel have improved their relationship with over the past decade. Surely if your gaze into the crystal ball is correct there should be some indication of this already?
Btw, they call you "peace activists" because what you really are cannot be expressed in socially acceptable terms....
I cannot speak for the flotilla organizers, but I believe the answer to your question lies in the items embargoed by Israel.
And before you respond with the Zionist canard about weapons smuggling, this is NOT the goal of the Gaza blockade. Its goal has always been political: to cause the civilian population as much suffering as possible - while still politically excusable - in order for the Palestinians in Gaza to reject and rise up against the Hamas leadership elected in January 2006. “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,” senior Israeli government advisor Dov Weisglass notoriously explained in 2006.
See: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/03
So, the answer to your question is: To comply with an embargo that amounts to the collective punishment of an entire civilian population would be aiding and abetting a war crime and is morally unconscionable. The guilt or innocence of Hamas is irrelevant to the war crime of collectively punishing an entire civilian population.
Perhaps if Israel limited its blockade to weapons smuggling only (as their propogandists claim) your question might seem more reasonable.
Also the fact that the Israeli State are responsible for security in the territory of Gaza will be an unwelcome shock to them as the basis for their blockade is precisely that they are not responsible for security in that territory and they've been denying that for some years now.
"When jurists come together, they often disagree on [how to characterize the conflict between Israel and Palestine]. But there’s definitely a consensus on one thing – namely that what you have here is an armed conflict. Which means that the laws governing such conflicts apply; and under these laws, sea blockades are allowed. ...
If a blockade is allowable in this conflict, then it’s also allowable to take measures to set up such a blockade. There’s only one principle that characterizes a blockade: the principle of effectiveness. In other words, the blockade has to prevent ships from entering or leaving the blockade zone. If the blockade fails to do this even once, it is ineffective and thus immediately becomes legally ineffective as well..
The mere fact that they set sail for Gaza does not constitute a criminal act. But: if you come out and say, [that you have the] express purpose of breaking the blockade, this is clear evidence of a blockade breaking attempt. And when that happens, the state that has imposed the blockade doesn’t need to wait until the ship in question reaches the 20 nautical mile boundary; ... [Israel] is not only entitled but also duty bound to maintain its blockade."
But these actions, and the ones you described would require that Naiman actually cared about anything except trashing Israel.
Your statement that the Red Cross could use a helping hand in Lebanon and Syria contains your answer.
While they certainly need additional aid, neither the Lebanese or the Syrian governments are actively blockading Red Cross aid to Palestinian refugee camps.
Israel, on the other hand, is actively doing so, and has made its goals clear: to cause the civilian population as much suffering as possible - while still politically excusable - in order for the Palestinians in Gaza to reject and rise up against the Hamas leadership elected in January 2006. “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,” senior Israeli government advisor Dov Weisglass notoriously explained in 2006.
See: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/03
Perhaps if the Lebanese and Syrians were imposing a land, air and sea blockade on these camps, with the express goal of putting them on a diet, your question might seem more reasonable.
Sad thing is that flotilia people do not understand that Hamas policies are harmfull to the lifes of ordinary Palestinians in Gaza, that anything that could be interpreted as the victory for Hamas is ultimate loss for the people of Gaza. Just look back in 2005.
This is why collective punishment is a crime. "Enablers of the crimes?"
You and Naiman should probably figure that out and get back to us.
How can this be pointless? It's very very effective!! And extremely embarrassing for any normal country....
Those dollar signs are kind of offensive, but at least Israel has people wanting to donate money on its behalf. If anything is "extremely embarrassing," it's that some of that vast oil wealth from the ME region isn't poured in a different direction, so people would be happier and lots of problems could be solved.
If one is eager to promote an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world and the nation-state of the Jewish people, the demand should go out to the Muslim-Arab leaders, local and regional, to finally, after 63 years of attempting to wipe Israel off the face of earth, accept Israel's right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people within "secure and recognized boundaries", as called for by UN Security Council Resolution, 242.
But, if attention-grabbing troubles one is eager to achieve, go ahead and attempt to break the lawful sea blockage on Gaza, and you too will be brought to the port of Ashdod in Israel where you will have the chance to either go to prison or leave the country and commit never to step a foot in it for the next ten years.
Sadly, it is the latter that the writer seeks: attention rather than hard word in advancing the repairing of the world.
P.S. Israel, to place matters in proportions, is a country the size of El Salvador, New Jersey, Wales or Slovenia, whose Jewish population is nearing six-million people and whose only natural resources are its people. This "empire" is the one the "brave" "peace activists" attempt to bring down. The crime: The Jewish people's insistence that it too has the right of national self-determination and independence as all other peoples, and it demands to guard this right in the face of those eager to wipe Israel off the face of earth.
If you choose to quote 242, then tell the whole truth.
Which law would Robert be breaking?
Peace activism is hard work. You might enjoy it.
Good luck, Brother! The world will be watching!!