Unless you've been completely out of contact with any form of news media in the past twelve days, you've probably heard a great deal about an Israeli commando raid on a Turkish aid flotilla bound for the Gaza strip that left 9 civilians dead.
Since the raid occured, two competing narratives have emerged, one supporting the point of view of the aid workers who were trying to bring humanitarian supplies into Gaza, and one supporting the Israeli government position.
Regardless of the arguments and evidence presented by the protagonists for either side, there are (at least) 4 facts that remain undisputed by any party.
1. A civilian ship was raided by Israeli commandos. An Israeli craft was not raided by a civilian ship
2. The raid was conducted at night, from a helicopter.
3. The raid took place in international waters
4. The siege of Gaza was a response to the victory of Hamas in Palestinian legislative elections.
One may draw different conclusions from these facts, but I have yet to see any source, representing any point of view, that disputes that they are facts.
My conclusions are as follows:
The first is important because it is mostly forgotten by spokespeople of various zionist organizations who want to blame the activists for being raided. "They had pipes and knives!" they say, "clearly this was a premeditated attack on Israel." Clearly, if Israel's enemies have been reduced to attacking its soldiers with pipes and kitchen knives, the threats to the country are greatly overstated.
#2 is important because it the timing of events was completely under Israeli control. If they had wanted to intercept the ship in broad daylight and tow it to another destination, they could have - they have done this with previous flotillas that have tried to run the Gaza blockade. If we make the charitable assumption that Israeli planners did not mean for violence to occur, the fact that its plans may have gone awry cannot be blamed on anyone but them.
#3 is not of relevance to what occured during the raid, but tells us something about the international reaction. This was an act of piracy. The Turkish reaction is, therefore, justifiable - Turks were killed on the high seas by a foreign power while not themselves violating any international statute. The American lack of reaction is equally unjustifable, given that an American citizen was also killed.
#4 needs to be pointed out because the justification for the siege - and therefore the excuse for the humanitarian crisis that the Israeli government has created - is often made out to be Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli cities. The Hamas campaign of firing homemade rockets into Israel, however, really only picked up in response to the siege. At the time that the siege was implemented, the rationale was to weaken a democratically-elected Palestinian government by punishing the population from which it drew its greatest support.
The claim, therefore, that the siege is necessary to keep weapons out of Gaza is, therefore, a post facto justification, dredged up to justify a policy that failed in its original goals.
The hasbara machine, however, has a conveniently short memory.
2 comments:
It is not uncommon for ships to be intercepted in international waters, this is not a unique breach of international law by Israel.
Examples and criticisms here and here. This fellow offers a fairly extensive argument justifying the international waters part, and also the broader issues.
So, based on other materials I've read, I'd respond:
1)They were hostile civilians pursuing an agenda which was contrary to Israel's interests, and didn't respond to less forceful measures that Israel tried to take. Pipes and knives can be deadly, and it seems pretty justifiable to respond to deadly force in kind. The logical counter-question is why were the commandos attacked?
2)I don't know how fast the convoy was moving, but at 40 nautical miles, I'd say it's a reasonable guess that they would have made landfall around dawn? Furthermore, it seems like it would be easy for the ships to scatter in the darkness so that some could make landfall.
3)See links above. Also, see the announcements in advance that they were going to violate the blockade. I think it's pretty plausible that an inexperienced military officer was manipulated into handing the flotilla-folks a flashy PR boost.
4)It seems pretty obviously in Israel's best interested to try to limit the arms and other contraband flowing into Gaza.
Besides, everyone has short memories; media outlets, selectively so. It's the great failing of our political systems.
I don't know if you're following this anymore, but the comment is substantial, and therefore merits some response.
I didn't read every link, but I did go through the "Treppenwitz" guy's arguments, and where his claims about international waters are concerned, he rests essentially on the claim that nations have the right to intercept contraband entering territory under their control, regardless of whether or not the vessels have entered their territorial waters.
If Israeli control over Gazan waters is so extensive such that all items - from cement to foodstuffs - are to be considered contraband, then this would conflict with his rather specious claim that there is no "blockade" on Gaza. Yes, under international law, Gaza may be technically still "occupied" but, in plain language an area with such extensive restrictions on imports and exports can be fairly called "blockaded."
If Israel had evidence that the crews of the flottilla were really the "common enemy of mankind" as pirates or human traffickers might be considered, they might have been justified. Ultimately, though, the claim that the raid on the Mavi Marmara was justified rests on the notion that the delivery of cement and medicines to Gazans constitute a threat to the economic or physical security of Israelis. This is a claim that seems patently unreasonable.
As for your own arguments my responses are
1) Which were the less forceful measures that Israel tried to take? Moreover, the use of the pipes and knives against the Israeli commandos occured after soldiers had begun rapelling down to the deck of the ship in the dead of night. Had it not been the IDF that conducted this raid, the crew would have been hailed as heroes for their valiant defence of their cargo.
2) The IDF has the resources to track half-a-dozen ships. In the unlikely event that the crews were somehow able to elude capture, their cargo would not. Or are Turkish people themselves so dangerous that Israel cannot afford for Hamas to obtain them?
3) This is always funny - if a nation represented by white people speaking impeccable English does something wrong, it's always a mistake - the error of some hapless flunkie who didn't know any better. If an Arab or African nation does something wrong, then no such benefit of the doubt is afforded - after all, their PR departments are waaaaay ahead of everyone else's.
4) Sure, it's in everybody's interest to limit arms from falling into the hands of their antagonists. It's the hows and the whys that are under debate.
Post a Comment