Israelis Wonder: Has the World Lost Its Mind?
The U.N. Security Council urgently convenes to create yet another anti-Israel kangaroo court—even as the sanctions effort against Iran's nuclear program falters.
By Yossi Klein Halevi
The Wall Street Journal June 4, 2010
Column archived at http://mideasttruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9840
Jerusalem
The outcry in Israel over the operation against the Gaza flotilla has cut across political lines. Yet unlike the outrage being expressed abroad, the concern here is over tactics, not morality. "It's not enough to be right," wrote one liberal columnist in the daily Ma'ariv, "one also needs to be smart." The assumption that Israel was right to stop the flotilla—and right to maintain its siege on Hamas-led Gaza—is largely a given here.
Israel and the rest of the world seem to be speaking dissonant moral languages. How, Israelis wonder, can pro-Hamas activists wielding knives be confused for peace activists? What is pro-peace about strengthening Hamas's grip on Gaza and thereby reducing the likelihood of a two-state solution? For that matter, what is pro-Palestinian about condemning the people of Gaza to jihadist rule?
The disconnect between Israel and the international community begins with radically differing perceptions over why the peace process has faltered. Most Israelis believe that their country, under Labor and Kadima governments, made repeated efforts to achieve a two-state solution, only to be rebuffed by Palestinian leaders. The election of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, Israelis note, wasn't the cause of the breakdown of the peace process. It was the result. Even today, Fatah leaders continue to insist on the right of Palestinian refugees to return to Israel—rather than to a Palestinian state—thereby undermining Israel's Jewish majority. Fatah insists, in other words, that the price for a two-state solution is a one-state solution.
In principle, the Israeli mainstream has endorsed the two-state vision of the international community. Many in Israel, and not only on the left, argue that a Palestinian state is an existential need for Israel—to extricate it from growing pariah status, from the moral dilemmas of occupation, and from an untenable choice between its democratic and Jewish identities.
But at the same time, Israelis also define a Palestinian state as an existential threat. Israelis fear that an independent Palestine would be either unwilling or unable to control terrorists from attacking the Israeli heartland just over the West Bank border. Even primitive Qassam rockets could make normal life in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem impossible. Moreover, international condemnation of Israel's 2009 war against Hamas—initiated after Israel withdrew from Gaza and then endured three years of almost daily rocket attacks—has convinced Israelis that they would be denied world approval to re-invade the West Bank in response to terrorist provocation.
The growing estrangement between Israel and world opinion is a tragic negation of the Zionist vision. For Israel's founders, Zionism wasn't only about returning the Jews to their homeland but to the community of nations. The root cause of anti-Semitism, argued the 19th century proto-Zionist thinker Leon Pinsker, was the human fear of ghosts: The Jews, a disembodied people without a land, were haunting the nations. By "concretizing" the Jews and turning them from wanderers into a nation like any other, he predicted, the illness of anti-Semitism would be cured.
Now, though, it's the Jewish state that is the target for demonization. The result is a crisis of confidence among some Jews in Zionism's ability to keep them safe.
From its founding, the state of Israel, denied legitimacy by its Arab neighbors, has had to contend with diplomatic isolation. It responded with daring and creativity. In the 1950s, Israel dispatched agricultural advisers to Africa and Asia, becoming a role model for developing nations. Later, its high-tech industries helped shape a strategic alliance with India.
The low point in Israel's international stature occurred after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Under pressure from the Arab oil boycott, Third World countries severed relations with the Jewish state. At the U.N., PLO leader Yasser Arafat declared that Israel had no right to exist and received a standing ovation from the General Assembly. A year later, in 1975, the U.N. voted to declare Zionism a form of racism.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had instigated the anti-Zionism campaign, Israel's status abruptly changed. The Zionism-racism resolution was repealed. And by the early 1990s, Israel was maintaining relations with most of the non-Muslim world.
The Zionist vision of acceptance by the nations seemed finally on its way to being fulfilled. The result was a greater willingness among Israelis to take risks for peace, as expressed by the 1993 Oslo peace process.
Now, Israel's international status is perhaps even worse than it was in the 1970s. Anti-Israeli animus then was largely a result of political and economic motives. Today, however misguided, the moral outrage against Israel is real.
By appealing to the world's conscience, Israel's jihadist enemies have learned how to turn their relative powerlessness into a strategic asset. Israel is being increasingly forced to choose between self-defense and acceptance by the nations. The likely result will be a growing sense of empowerment among jihadists, and a growing sense of desperation among Israelis.
Israelis watch with cynical astonishment as the U.N. Security Council urgently convenes to create a Commission of Inquiry—yet another anti-Israel kangaroo court—even as the sanctions effort against Iran's nuclear program falters. They contrast the banner headlines in the world's media over the flotilla with the barely noted news item of recent days that Tehran now has enough uranium for two nuclear bombs. And as some self-described friends of Israel are publicly wondering whether the Jewish state needs to be "saved from itself," Israelis reciprocate the outrage and ask: Has the world lost its mind?
Mr. Klein Halevi is a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem and a contributing editor to The New Republic.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj
Sunday, June 6, 2010
YKHalevi: Self defense or international acceptance?
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Reuters: Affirming the legality of naval blockades and enforcement procedures.
Q&A-Is Israel's naval blockade of Gaza legal?
02 Jun 2010 Source: Reuters By Jonathan Saul
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6511I7.htm
LONDON, June 2 (Reuters) - Israel has said it will continue a naval blockade of the Gaza Strip despite growing global pressure to lift the siege after a navy raid on a Turkish ferry carrying aid killed nine activists this week.
What is the legality of the blockade and did Israel's intervention breach international law? Below are some questions and answers on the issue:
CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?
Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognised document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea". Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.
"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.
WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?
Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.
There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.
"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.
The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.
Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.
CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?
Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.
"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.
Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defence after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.
Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.
"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.
The use of force may also have other repercussions.
"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.
"However, not every operation that the law permits is necessarily prudent from the strategic point of view."
OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY". WAS IT?
No, as under international law it was considered a state action.
"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.
HAVE THERE BEEN ANY SHIPPING DISRUPTIONS AFTER THE RAID?
None so far but the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), an association which represents 75 percent of the world's merchant fleet, has expressed "deep concern" over the boarding by Israeli forces, arguing that merchant ships have a right to safe passage and freedom of navigation in international waters.
"These fundamental principles of international law must always be upheld by all of the world's nations," the ICS said.
For links to the maritime declarations click on: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/52d68d14de6160e0c12563da005fdb1b/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce!OpenDocument
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also San Remo Manual 1994
Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) 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 or capture;
Source: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument
Friday, June 4, 2010
Previous message may be a fake
REID STATEMENT SUPPORTING ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE
REID STATEMENT SUPPORTING ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE
Washington, DC — Nevada Senator Harry Reid released the following statement today in reaction to the recent incident in the Mediterranean Sea:
“Israel is one of our strongest and most important allies, and the United States stands firmly with Israel at this critical time.
“I deeply regret the loss of life in the flotilla incident, including the death of an American citizen.
“Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens and therefore has a clear right under international law to prevent weapons from getting in the hands of terrorists determined to target them. Israel indicated it was willing to put in place a process to ensure that legitimate humanitarian relief reached Gaza. Unfortunately this offer was rejected.
“Israel has pledged to carry out a transparent and thorough investigation of this incident, and I look forward to its findings.”
###
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Biden defends Israel's right to stop Gaza flotilla from breaking blockade
Biden: Israel right to stop Gaza flotilla from breaking blockade
6/2/10 http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/biden-israel-right-to-stop-gaza-flotilla-from-breaking-blockade-1.293833
VP Biden tells Charlie Rose that the Israel Navy might not have needed to drop commandos onto the Gaza-bound ship, but insists that Israel is entitled to defend its security.
By Natasha Mozgovaya Tags: Joe Biden Gaza flotilla
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday defended Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip and its decision to intercept the pro-Palestinian flotilla bringing humanitarian aid to the coastal territory, though he did not go so far as to defend the Israel Navy raid that killed nine people two days earlier.
In an interview with Charlie Rose, Biden pointed out that Israel had given pro-Palestinian activists the option of unloading their cargo at the Ashdod port, and offered to bring it to the Gaza Strip on their behalf.
"They've said, 'Here you go. You're in the Mediterranean. This ship -- if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we'll get the stuff into Gaza,'", he said. "So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it's legitimate for Israel to say, 'I don't know what's on that ship. These guys are dropping… 3,000 rockets on my people.
"Look, you can argue whether Israel should have dropped people onto that ship or not -- but the truth of the matter is, Israel has a right to know -- they're at war with Hamas -- has a right to know whether or not arms are being smuggled in."
During the interview, Biden also blamed Hamas for the crisis that has wracked the coastal territory and for the ongoing state of conflict with Israel.
"As we put pressure, and the world put pressure on Israel to let material go into Gaza to help those people who are suffering, the ordinary Palestinians there, what happened? Hamas would confiscate it, put it in a warehouse [and] sell it.
"So the problem is this would end tomorrow if Hamas agreed to form a government with the Palestinian Authority on the conditions the international community has set up," Biden told Rose.
U.S. Congress reacts to Gaza flotilla raid
In contrast to the barrage of condemnations all over the globe, many in the U.S. Congress expressed support for Israel.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressed her regret for the loss of life and said the event "underscores the urgent need for negotiations designed to achieve an enduring and comprehensive regional peace."
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said Israel "rightfully invoked its right to self defense."
"Hamas could end the blockade at any time by recognizing Israel’s right to exist, renouncing violence, and releasing Gilad Shalit," Hoyer continued.
Spectrum of opinion re: Gaza blockade
What is a concrete course of action to take now to maintain security for Israel while addressing the humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza?
- Ehud Eiran, Belfer Center, Harvard University
- Yossi Klein Halevi, Shalom Hartman Center, Jerusalem
- Hossam el-Hamalawy, journalist
- David Makovsky, co-author of “Myths, Illusions and Peace”
- Michele Dunne, editor, Arab Reform Bulletin
- Allegra Pacheco, lawyer
- Amjad Atallah, New America Foundation
- Rime Allaf, Chatham House
Gordis: A Botched Raid, a Vital Embargo
Excerpt: "It is no accident that Turkey sent the flotilla at this time. It is clearly cozying up to Iran these days, even teaming with Brazil to offer Tehran a deal on atomic fuel that would allow the mullahs to maintain their effort to build a nuclear arsenal. Ankara's warmongering talk this week was not intended for global consumption; it was meant to show Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Turkey is playing a new role in the Middle East."
Op-Ed Contributor
A Botched Raid, a Vital Embargo
By DANIEL GORDIS
June 2, 2010 New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/opinion/03gordis.html
IN the last few days, Jerusalem has been blanketed by an unusual combination of humiliation and steely determination. How is it, people here wondered aloud, that the same country that tripled its size in three lightning days in June 1967 and then pulled off the rescue at Entebbe nine years later now seems to botch everything?
We lost the 2006 war in Lebanon, believing — incorrectly — that our venerated air force could win the war from the skies. The strikes on Gaza in December 2008 were a military success, but we have utterly failed to convince the world that it was a defensive effort precipitated by eight years of Hamas's firing Qassam rockets at us, killing and maiming and destroying any semblance of a normal life for Israelis living near the border. And then came Monday's attack on the flotilla trying to break through the naval blockade of Gaza.
Yet, despite widespread criticism at the way the raid was conducted, few here doubted that stopping the flotilla was the right thing to do. Life in Gaza is unquestionably oppressive; no one in his right mind would choose to live there. But there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; if anyone goes without food, shelter or medicine, that is by the choice of the Hamas government, which puts garnering international sympathy above taking care of its citizens. Israel has readily agreed to send into Gaza all the food and humanitarian supplies on the boats after they had been inspected for weapons.
Thus this flotilla was no "peace operation." It was intended to break the blockade or to increase international pressure to end it. Its leaders, with the connivance of the Turkish government, set a trap, and Israel blundered smack into it.
But that does not make the blockade wrong. Hamas is a terrorist organization that completed its takeover of Gaza through brute force. It executes its political enemies at will. It is one of the world's most misogynist regimes, allowing the murder of women for the slightest infraction of family honor.
Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, from Israeli territory and has held him for four years without giving the Red Cross any access to him, in violation of the most basic international standards of conduct. And, of course, Hamas openly insists that it will countenance no long-term peace with Israel; the resistance will not end, it says, until Israel is destroyed.
Like every other country, Israel has as its foremost obligation the protection of its citizens. Given that, why should it have allowed the flotilla to enter without inspecting its goods? If the United States were to impose a blockade on Iran (which seems unlikely), and another country dispatched a string of ships in a similar operation, is there any chance the United States Navy would let them through without inspection?
Israel will, of course, endure tremendous international condemnation for this week's events. Sadly, though, we Israelis are becoming somewhat inured to such criticism. And we know that we dare not capitulate now.
It is no accident that Turkey sent the flotilla at this time. It is clearly cozying up to Iran these days, even teaming with Brazil to offer Tehran a deal on atomic fuel that would allow the mullahs to maintain their effort to build a nuclear arsenal. Ankara's warmongering talk this week was not intended for global consumption; it was meant to show Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that Turkey is playing a new role in the Middle East.
Iran finances Hezbollah and Hamas and does everything it can to weaken and marginalize Israel, inching toward its vision of a world without a Jewish state. The West has known of Iran's nuclear intentions for well over a decade, but has effectively done nothing. Israelis understand that we — and we alone — will have to ensure our security and our survival.
The recent avalanche of international condemnation is very painful for Israelis, who remember the years in which we were seen as a beacon of democracy and sophistication in a repressive part of the world. Those days are gone, of course, because of the world's impatience with the "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza.
Our problem is that though most Israelis want peace with two states — one Jewish and one Palestinian, living side by side — we cannot find anyone to make a deal with us. A decade ago, President Bill Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barak, tried, but Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, walked away. Now the supposedly moderate Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, refuses to negotiate, as of course does Hamas.
Israelis are resigned to the fact that reason will not shake the world's blatant double standard. Our blockade of Gaza is "criminal"; yet nobody mentions that Egypt has had a blockade of Gaza in place since 2007, and has never hesitated to use lethal force against those trying to break it. Israel's attempt to enforce a blockade becomes an international crisis, while most of the world shrugs when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his willingness to sit with Fatah leaders any time, anywhere, but they insist on mere "proximity talks," which they will probably now scuttle, using the flotilla as an excuse.
Israel's geographic vulnerability means that we do not have the luxury of caving in to the world's condemnation. We will have to gird ourselves for the long, dangerous and lonely road ahead, buoyed by hope that what ultimately prevails will be not what is momentarily popular, but rather what is just.
Daniel Gordis is a vice president of the Shalem Center, a research and education institute, and the author of "Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End."