[THS] Moshe Yaroni: Flotilla Fallout: An Early Assessment

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://realisticpeace.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/flotilla-fallout-an-early-assessment/

No legal basis for such an action. period.


Flotilla Fallout: An Early Assessment
By Moshe Yaroni

There’s a lot more information out now about the disastrous Israeli attack on the
flotilla that was heading to Gaza last weekend. That doesn’t necessarily mean more
clarity about what actually happened, but there’s enough to start assessing at least
some of the impact.

There aren’t a lot of winners in this affair. Facts tend to be one of the first casualties
in these things, and such has been the case again. We can start with that.

Israel’s claim that she’s entitled to take this action is disingenuous at best. There
simply is no legal basis for taking an action such as this one in international waters,
far from Israel’s zone of sovereignty. The idea that a civilian ship intending to run a
blockade (one which itself has no basis in law, despite claims to the contrary) can be
boarded in international waters before attempting such a run is simply absurd.
Boarding civilian ships in international waters by armed commandoes invites the use
of force, and the notion that such commandoes were “victims” of a “lynching” simply
turns reality on its head.

Israel is also talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, Israel claims
that they needed to board these ships in force, with an elite commando unit,
because they feared they might be carrying weapons to Hamas, particularly due to
the involvement of “terrorist supporters.” On the other, they say they were
unprepared for significant resistance and were expecting non-violent tactics. You
can’t have it both ways.

There is a lot of wailing to the effect that the real purpose of these ships was to run
the blockade of Gaza and make a media splash, not primarily to deliver the goods
they brought.

Well, yes. That’s not a secret, and no one is claiming otherwise.

MJ Rosenberg puts it very well: “Of course the goal of the flotilla was to break the
blockade.  Of course Martin Luther King provoked the civil authorities of the South to
break segregation.  Of course the Solidarity movement used workers’ rights as a
pretext to break Soviet-imposed Communism.”

But the facts are not the only losers here.

The Free Gaza Movement

This group (and as I said earlier, I know a number of people involved with it) made a
terrible mistake in associating themselves with the Turkish IHH. One of FGM’s
strengths was its commitment to non-violence. Apparently, from what the media has
reported and from what I’m told, they themselves stuck to it on this mission and
instructed their people to use non-violent resistance.

But the IHH has its own program, and they most certainly are not committed to non-
violence. Again, the media reports and my own sources seem to indicate the IHH was
much more prepared to use violent tactics in resisting the Israeli assault. The fact
that it happened that way opened the door for criticism. It clearly escalated the
situation and will forever reflect on FGM. No matter what they do, it will be impossible
for FGM to portray itself as a non-violent group again. And that was an important tool
in their PR kit.

Israel

The intense criticism Israel has faced is reflective of the new realities of the world.
Operation Cast Lead, in fact, was a turning point. With the exception of the United
States, the world is no longer prepared to accept that Israel’s use of overwhelming
force against much weaker opponents or even civilians is an act of “self-defense.”
The condemnation by virtually the entire western world outside of the US shows how
thin this argument has become. And even in the US, defense of Israel is far less
universal than it has been in the past.

Israel’s relationship with Turkey, which before Cast Lead was easily Israel’s closest ally
in the Muslim world, may have been dealt a crippling blow here. It certainly has been
badly damaged.

Israel may not mind. The current leadership may well have decided that the growing
and already strong influence of Islamist parties in Turkey make it an ally whose
friendship may require a price they don’t want to pay. Certainly the treatment of the
Turkish ambassador at the beginning of this year by the Israeli Foreign Ministry
supports this notion.

Israel may believe it can force the US to choose between itself and Turkey
somewhere down the road if relations continue to degenerate, and they may be right
about that as well. But the increasing tension between the two countries obviously
impacts Israeli security quite negatively. Turkey has been Israel’s only military ally in
the region, and the two countries have cooperated in many military exercises, as well
as in water projects, and in other forms of economic, military and political
cooperation. All of this is in peril.

That’s an effect that many see as very bad for Israel, but perhaps Israel does not.
Many of us also believe that the determined effort to eschew diplomatic solutions with
Iran and pursue sanctions that are not likely to deter the government but will hurt
the Iranian people is a bad idea. But Israel has pushed hard for it. This too is now in
jeopardy.

UN discussion of Iran sanctions have been pushed to the back-burner, and UNSC
member state Turkey may now work against it at the UN rather than limiting its
efforts to fostering alternatives. This may affect the cooperation the US has managed
to get from Russia and, especially, China, whose acquiescence to sanctions was not
very sure in the first place.

That is all aside from Israel having taken another big step toward becoming an
international pariah.

The siege on Gaza has done nothing whatsoever to advance Israeli security. On the
contrary, it has actually made it much harder for Israel to monitor what goes into the
Strip by vastly expanding the tunnel economy and widening the opening for weapons
smuggling. It has strengthened Hamas’ hold on the territory. It has inflicted
enormous and needless suffering on the people of Gaza, making Israel look cruel to
the rest of the world. And, as a form of collective punishment, it has demonstrated
Israel’s contempt for the rule of law. The flotilla’s very existence and the disastrous
incident this past weekend are the fruits of that poisonous tree.

The IHH

They were the biggest winners from this whole incident. The controversy over this
incident has sparked by far the most diplomatic activity around the globe to lift the
siege of Gaza. The IHH represents conservative Islamist forces within Turkey and
come off as the heroes in this affair to many, both in Turkey and around the world.

The IHH’s connection to terrorist groups is not proven, but ideologically, they make
no secret of supporting Hamas and other Islamist groups.  By striking a blow against
the Gaza siege, they greatly increase their standing among their supporters and
potential supporters.

The IHH was operating with the sanction of the Turkish government, which, despite
earlier confrontations including arrests, considers it an NGO, albeit one they may not
like very much. There is no doubt that this action will make it much harder for the
Turks to sideline IHH politically.

The United States

Statements from Vice President Joe Biden, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,
Representative Anthony Weiner and Senator John McCain, among others, supported
Israel’s action virtually without qualification. These voices are reverberating
throughout the Middle East, and the response in the Arab and Muslim world will be
that the US has once again shown that it will support any and all Israeli actions, no
matter what.

The Obama Administration, though, is coming off looking much worse.

Obama seems to be trying to play toward a middle ground. He is not offering the
unqualified support his Vice President is, but he is not seriously criticizing the Israeli
action either.

The US worked hard to water down a Security Council statement. But they’re also
pushing for a transparent and independent investigation, to be carried out by Israel.
That is not sitting well with the Netanyahu government, yet it is also well short of the
international investigation the rest of the world prefers.

And therein lies the problem with Obama’s response here. He is not playing the
AIPAC line and Jewish groups are disappointed he’s not doing more. But he’s also
positioning the US outside a global consensus on this. Thus, he’s trying to keep
everyone calm, but pleasing no one.

Some may consider that smart politics in an election year. But the result will be a loss
of credibility in the Arab world and no commensurate gain among Israelis. And it
projects very weak leadership, which will be detrimental to the President not only in
the international arena, but here at home as well. The Republicans, with McCain
leading the charge, smell his blood in the water on this issue and Obama is not doing
himself any favors with his middle of the road stance.

Part of the problem may also be the position of the Palestinian Authority. Obama is
surely concerned that if he condemns Israel it will increase the already great pressure
on Mahmoud Abbas to abandon any talks with Israel, proximity or otherwise. Obama
worked too hard to get even the little bit he has to risk losing it in a day.

Netanyahu

Bibi also comes out looking very bad here. Even those who believe Israel should have
confronted the flotilla agree that this was handled very badly. And, back to an earlier
point, Bibi’s government was well aware the IHH was involved in this effort, and if
they’re the terrorists Netanyahu is now saying they are, why are the commandoes
saying they were not prepared for serious resistance?

No matter where you come down on the wisdom, ethics and legality of this operation,
it was clearly an intelligence failure and an operational one as well. Bibi has presided
over too many of these debacles (can anyone forget the botched 1997 attempt to kill
Khaled Meshal in Amman, which threatened to torpedo the still very young Israeli-
Jordanian peace treaty, and led to Israel releasing Hamas’ leader at the time, Sheikh
Ahmed Yassin?).

Hamas

They seemed to have a golden opportunity to enhance their standing, but seem now
to want very much to throw it away. It’s all well and good that they want to publicly
defend the flotilla activists, but refusing the delivery of the seized materials from
Israel betrays once again the lack of concern Hamas has for the conditions in Gaza.

Still, the action strengthened Hamas’ position, on the whole. Whether or not they can
do anything with those gains remains to be seen.

The Gaza Siege

There are many calls now for an end to the siege of Gaza. The New York Times
editorial page called for it today. Tony Blair, the Quartet’s representative, did so as
well, as did England’s First Secretary of State, William Hague. And statements calling
for the end of the blockade came from the EU and UN Security Council.

In the last analysis, this means that the flotilla accomplished its goal beyond anything
it could have reasonably hoped for. For three years, Gaza has been under siege.
Three years where that siege has done nothing to stop rocket fire, to stop Hamas
increasing its military capabilities, to weaken Hamas’ hold on Gaza or to help free
Gilad Shalit.

Yet for those three years, the world has been remarkably silent. The calls today for
ending the siege make this day louder than all the days of the past three years
combined.

Right now, Netanyahu is standing fast, stamping his feet and saying he “won’t do it
no matter what you say.” But the reality is that Israel has very little stake in the siege.
At one time, both Israel and Egypt hoped that the blockade would prevent Hamas
from gaining legitimacy as a government. They did not want to see Hamas graduate
from terrorist group to legitimate political players as so many other groups (the ANC,
Sinn Fein, the FLN, and yes, even the pre-state Zionist Revisionist militias, the Irgun
and LEHI, from which two future Israeli prime ministers came) have.

But, as with other goals of the siege, the opposite effect has come about. Hamas has
withstood the siege and more and more voices are urging Israel to talk with them.
The attempt to, as Dov Weisglass once said, “put the Palestinians on a diet” has
failed. The Gazans did not rise up to overthrow Hamas. But there have been
indications that Gazans are not so thrilled with Hamas.

Historically, outside pressure causes people to support, not overthrow, their
governments. A lifting of the siege might well expose more dissatisfaction with Hamas
than many might believe.

In any case, the siege has failed on a practical level, and was always a calamity on a
moral one. It’s time for it to go.