The World vs. Israel

Israel once again stands alone versus the world, suffering an unjustified, biased, and prejudicial backlash over its handling of the attempted blockade-running by a group of pro-Palestinian activists-cum-aggressors. Earlier this week, a flotilla of six ships attempted to break the Israeli and Egyptian enforced blockade of the Gaza Strip in what they thinly described as a ‘humanitarian-aid’ mission.

The flotilla was anything but driven by humanitarian aims. The organizers themselves described it primary as a mission to break the blockade – a political, not a compassionate goal.  Greta Berlin, leader of Free Gaza, one of the organizing groups stated, "Our mission is to break the blockade of Gaza."  And while the activists filled their ships with wheelchairs and other non-military items, the cynical ruse was not to provide the supposedly oppressed Gazans with these supplies, but win a public relations battle versus Israel. In this vein, the flotilla refused offers from the Israeli navy to transfer the humanitarian supplies to Gaza overland via the Israeli port of Ashdod, instead opting to have a high-seas confrontation with the Israeli navy.

The activists knew very well that they could set a trap for Israel, creating a win-win situation. Either they would break the blockade, thus rendering Israel’s necessary defense ineffective or they would goad the Israelis into a battle that although winnable in a tactical sense would receive the standard international condemnation.

The Israelis were unfortunately caught in the latter, as the passengers of the lead ship, the Mavi Marmara¸ violently attacked the boarding Israeli commandos after refusing to stop their approach towards Gaza. Despite being primarily armed with paintball guns and cautioned to treat the mission as a police, not a military, assignment, the Israeli commandos were ruthlessly beaten, attacked, and savaged by the supposed ‘peaceniks’. The commandos responded in-kind, defending their own lives, and leaving nine Turkish passengers dead.

Unsurprisingly, there was quick condemnation from the international community. Many critics argue that Israel used excessive force in dealing with the activists. But while such denunciation is routine, is highly unjustified. Video footage [Clip 1 Clip 2 Clip 3 Clip 4] from the incident is unquestionably clear as to the violence of the passengers. News reports, largely ignored by the Western media, indicate that at least 50 of the 700 activists were hired mercenaries, strategically placed to inflict maximum harm. Other reports indicate that guns and other weaponry may have been thrown overboard after the fight. And to boot, there are firm connections between the organizers of the flotilla, a ‘charity’ referred to as IHH, and radical Islamist terrorists, such as Hamas and al-Qaeda.

Israel is the one country the world loves to pick on. In a combination of anti-Semitism, anti-Westernism, liberal apologism, Islamism, and a disgusting moral equivalency, Israel finds itself internationally isolated, save for some tepid support by the US administration. The backwardness and hypocrisy of this is appalling. Little is said when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, killing 46 sailors, criticism is muted against the intra-Muslim massacres that routinely occur in Iraq, and condemnation of the abuses of such regimes ranging from Iran to Sudan is dismissed; however, Israel, operating in a legal and just fashion to defend itself, is blasted from every corner.

Leaving aside the justness of the specific blockade for a moment, it is indubitable that any country maintaining a blockade of an enemy force will seek to maintain the barrier. The activists knew this very well and chose to pick a fight. No blockade can be successful if anyone claiming ‘humanitarian aid’ can simply waltz through. By not complying with the restrictions of the blockade the flotilla necessarily became an antagonistic force towards Israel, which rightly had to impede the ships’ progress. Any country at war would do the same, most without the conscientious regard for the perpetrators wellbeing (and the aid, by the way, is already en route overland to Gaza). As the fate of the other five ships demonstrates, the Israelis had no interest in harming any people on board; only when the pro-Palestinians became aggressive did the commandos feel a need to respond.

Critics, however, point to the blockade as the source of all problems. The fact is that the blockade is necessary, proper, and legal. It is (or has been) accepted by the Quartet, the four major negotiators in the region, and managed in tandem with Egypt. Both Egypt and Israel are threatened by the heinous leadership that is Hamas, which not only subverts its people but routinely sends rockets into Israel. The blockade is indispensable in preventing Hamas from rearming, which ultimately will save both Israeli and Palestinian lives.

The anti-Israel rhetoric is grounded in a baseless argument that the blockade and the fight against Hamas is anything but necessitated by Israel’s desire for security and self-preservation. Arguments that claim collective punishment or state oppression are meaningless pufferies that are aimed to excite the emotions of the naïve and ignore the reality in the region. One only need compare the conditions in Gaza to those in West Bank to see Israel’s true aims when it comes to the blockade. The West Bank, run by the more moderate Fatah, is far less violent and threatening to Israel, and thus has not been blockaded.

The Mavi Marmara incident has unjustly given Israel a black-eye, but should not sway the Netanyahu administration from the correctness of its course. As the next flotilla, led by the Rachel Corrie, heads towards Gaza’s shores, the Israelis must be resolute in protecting the blockade. To give an inch is to undermine the last defense they have against a resurgent Hamas in Gaza. As the international community slowly whittles away at the foundations of Israeli security, the tiny nation must do what it can to preserve its existence. While, per standard procedures, all actions should be taken to minimize civilian harm, Israel must recognize that no matter what actions it takes, short of liquidating itself, it will receive international condemnation. It is far better to receive global opprobrium than sow the seeds of your own destruction.

Attack Thy Friend

Once again the US administration and Israeli government are going head-to-head. Recently, while Vice President, Joe Biden, was visiting Israel, the Israeli Interior Ministry announced a building project of 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem. Biden, followed by a number of administration officials quickly condemned the Israeli announcement as damaging for the recently renewed peace process.

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu supposedly was blindsided by the far-right religious parties in his coalition. While skeptics doubt whether Netanyahu was truly oblivious, Biden took steps to accept Netanyahu’s ignorance. However, the administration followed with an outpouring of criticism and demands on the Israelis; including, investigation into the timing of the announcement, commitment towards confidence building steps (such as the release of prisoners), and a promise to discussion “final status” issues.

While the timing of the announcement was unconstructive at best; the administration’s response is unhelpful. The Obama administration consistently insists on lambasting its top ally in the region, in a continuous pattern of attack-thy-friend. This not only damages the already fragile relationship with Israel, but incites the Palestinians to avoid the negotiating table.

The administration’s continual rebukes give enormous power to the right-wing members of the Israeli ruling coalition. Many of these parties do not want to see any sort of peace deal. By allowing their tactics to throw a wrench into the negotiations, the administration ennobles their strategy. Whether in concert with or against Netanyahu’s wishes, these tactics prevent the process from going forward. As Netanyahu becomes isolated from the US and the Israeli public correctly views the US administration as a less than amicable friend, the Israeli leadership is forced to the far-right. Obama’s pushback on Netanyahu’s prior settlement plans summarily exploded in his face, making the administration look weak and unfriendly to Israel. Their knee-jerk reaction to condemn Netanyahu this time around is only furthering the perception of American ineptitude.

Likewise, the administration’s admonishment of Israel only serves to push the Palestinians away from the table. The Palestinian leadership now has little incentive to negotiate.  Instead, it can sit on the sidelines and watch the Israeli-American slugfest. Already, the Palestinian Authority has claimed that this round of negotiations have failed. Rather than being forced by the US to hold indirect talks with the Israelis, the Palestinians have gained a new level of confidence that they do not need to pursue a path to peace. They will be able to step back to their continued path of low-level violence with impunity. This is particularly true given the lack of condemnation by the US administration of the recent naming of a Palestinian West Bank square in honor of a suicide bomber and terrorist who killed 38 people.
The administration’s rush to criticize Israel has only added fuel to the fire. While the Interior Ministry’s announcement was ill-timed and possibly meant to incite the process, it does not justify such a public outcry by the US. Instead, backdoor channels should have been used not only to defuse and minimize the announcement but to assure that such problems are swiftly dealt with. Instead, the public airing of dirty laundry only hastens the failure of an already tenuous peace process.

Blame the Israelis - The Goldstone Report

The results of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, published in what is being called the Goldstone Report, were unsurprising to say the least. The report, under the auspices of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council, a notoriously biased institution, predictably slams Israel. It places undue blame on the Jewish state for the conflict, accusing the nation of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The report, which essentially claims that Israel used disproportioned force and directly targeted civilians, is another entry in a long list of systematic anti-Israel bias propagated by the UN and other international bodies. According to the press release announcing the report,

The report underlines that in most of the incidents investigated by it, and described in the report, loss of life and destruction caused by Israeli forces during the military operation was a result of disrespect for the fundamental principle of “distinction” in international humanitarian law that requires military forces to distinguish between military targets and civilians and civilian objects at all times.

While the report does cite war crimes committed by Palestinian terrorists, it largely focuses on the alleged Israeli actions. The anti-Israel sentiment is deep-seeded and unlikely to go away. It is relatively clear that the Human Rights Council has little interest in promoting human rights, but has a predisposed agenda to target the tiny nation. This is exemplified by the fact that the Council recently congratulated the Sri Lankan regime after a war to rout the insurgent Tamil Tigers left thousands of civilians dead. The fact that the Council has such inconsistent standards is stark evidence of their inbuilt biases.

Israel, which refused from the beginning to participate in the prejudiced ‘fact-finding’ that led to the report, lashed out at the publication. Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu claimed “[The report] put Israel in a kangaroo court and was a prize for terrorism…” The report’s central conclusion of Israeli aggression is a gross misstatement of reality and a complete avoidance of the facts that surrounded the conflict. The Israelis operated one of the most civilian friendly attacks- particularly given the high propensity of Hamas to hide fighters and military targets alongside or within civilian facilities. The Israeli army consistently warned civilians to leave areas that were to be attacked and avoided attacking targets that would severely harm civilians. While civilians were unfortunately killed, the culpability lies with Hamas, not Israel. Hamas routinely tries to inflate civilian injury and death counts- both through manipulation of statistics and by directly putting the people they supposedly lead into harms way. The report does little justice to this fact.

The fact of the matter is that, as The Economist points out, Israel has overwhelming military superiority. If Israel’s aim was to cause civilian suffering they certainly would have inflicted much greater damage. The imbalance between the strength of the Palestinian forces and the Israeli military only speaks to the restraint exercised by Israel. Israel’s sole goal is to prevent Palestinian attacks and protect its citizens. To assert otherwise is simply an act in self-delusion motivated by anti-Israel sentiments.

The Human Rights Council’s report only serves to obfuscate the facts of the conflict and prolong unnecessary hardship in the region. Israel is already reluctant to engage with the biased international community. If the UN aims to find a solution for the crisis in the Middle East, it is better served by toning down its prejudiced attacks on Israel and allowing the tiny nation to feel that it can turn to the international community for assistance with its grievances. The current international approach only serves to push Israel away, feed the nation’s insecurity and solitude, and increase the likelihood that Israel will take defensive actions (read: attack Iran) on its own.

Do Iranians Hate Israel or Their Own Regime?

There was a new chant this year at the annual anti-Israel Quds Day demonstrations in Iran. Alongside the familiar “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” was the new “Death to the Dictator.”

Quds Day is a government sponsored day of rallies and Israel bashing in Iran. While the anti-Israel nature of the event was certainly not diminished, it was challenged by a brief resurgence of the Iranian reformists, who used the opportunity to continue their protest of the unjust clerical regime.

The protests highlight the illegitimacy and oppressiveness of the Iranian regime. Even reformist former president Mohammad Khatami was not immune from the hard-liners abuses as he was attacked during the protests. Despite the fact that the Iranian regime has successfully cracked down and solidly maintains control, the reformist movement has not been obliterated.

This speaks to the tenacity of the movement. They were deserted by the West three months ago when they were at the peak of their fervor and the Iranian regime was at its weakest in 30 years. Despite acknowledging the electoral fraud, the Obama administration chose not to support the protestors because it wanted to keep a ‘good’ relationship with the current regime.

This realist policy seems to have yielded little. In a recent interview with NBC’s Ann Curry, Ahmadinejad refused to state that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons. The slippery President generally refused to answer any questions directly. The relationship with Iran continues to stagnate, as the regime persists in its dance with the West. This will surely continue with Ahmadinejad’s upcoming speech to the UN General Assembly in New York next week. It is easy to expect another round of provocations of the US, anti-Israel rhetoric, and Holocaust denials.

The fact that the US still feels the need to tiptoe around Iran and fails to provide any real consequences for the regime’s defiance and its repression of its people is unacceptable. The revolutionary spirit still lives in Iran. So much so that some of the notorious enemies of Israel, have given up an opportunity to bash the small Jewish state in favor of condemning their own government. Our fear of challenging Iran only strengthens its hand.

Will Israel Attack Iran?

In a recent meeting with the US, Israel reaffirmed that “no option should be ruled out” when dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat. The meeting between US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and his Israeli counterpart, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, reconfirms the tensions created by the Iranian quest for nuclear weaponry.

Given Iran’s historical belligerence towards Israel, the tiny nation is correct to view Ahmadinejad and his cronies as an existential threat. The Iranian despot has repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. The achievement of an Iranian nuke would be the harbinger of the death of Israel. However, it is unlikely that Israel would allow the Iranian nuclear program to reach this terminal stage. Well before such a point, Israel would most certainly launch an attack on the Persian state. Such an attack would have profound effects on Israel and the entire Middle East.

An Israeli attack would lead to a heavy handed Iranian reprisal that would quickly embroil the Middle East into a regional war— which quite possibly could spread into a broader conflagration. Israel of course knows this and logically wants to avoid such a destabilizing act. However, the choice is clear when given an option between annihilation and fighting to prevent destruction. Barak stated, “We are not blind. We know everything we do has implications on our neighbors, we take this into account, but ultimately we are committed to Israel's security interests."

The crucial question is: ‘When do the Israelis feel they have reached the point-of-no-return?’ The Iranian nuclear program is far more complex than the Iraqi program which Israel successfully ended with the bombing of Osirak in 1981. A single surgical strike would be unable to end the Iranian program. This implies that upon deciding to attack Iran, Israel would have to use a considerable amount of force. Such a need of force will certainly delay an Israeli strike; however, only to a certain point. If Israeli intelligence indicates that a nuclear Iran is imminent, the country will strike.

All of this heightens the need for America, and the world community, to increase pressure on Iran. The Iranian nuclear program needs to be halted immediately. However, the Obama administration’s insistence on making nice with our enemies and bullying our friends is counterproductive to this aim. The administration’s warped view of foreign policy, as successfully slammed in The Wall Street Journal, is not only unwise but downright foolish. Obama continues to push Israel and court Iran. Ultimately, this will increase Israel’s insecurity and accelerate the ‘point-of-no-return’. After nearly eight months in office, it is time that Obama realizes his foreign policy is leading the world down a dangerous path. Hopefully, he will change his tune before a disastrous war in the Middle East forces him to.

Good Job, Bibi

Thankfully, Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu held his ground during his meeting with President Obama, and refused to outright accept a two-state solution. However, his tone and language were far more conciliatory and accommodating than the demonized image presented by the mainstream media. (See the video here http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=13530029&ch=4226716&src=news).

Netanyahu made three pertinent points. First, he expressed a desire to start negotiations immediately (he also mentioned that peace should be regional in nature). Second, he stated that Israel has no desire to govern the Palestinians. He wants them to govern themselves, albeit it without certain parties that would endanger Israel (such as Hamas). While this does not explicitly signify an acceptance of a two-state solution, it shows some recognition of the general concept. Third, the Palestinians need to recognize Israel as Jewish state.

This third point is an important one that is often overlooked. Netanyahu is highly criticized because he does not openly accept a two-state solution; however, the equivalent acceptance on the Palestinian side is even more difficult to discern. Why should the Israelis be held to a higher pre-negotiation standard than the Palestinians? This is particularly concerning because many of the Palestinian groups not only do not accept a two-state solution, but vehemently call for the complete destruction of Israel. How is a nation supposed to negotiate peace with such animosity on the other side?

Even if a two-state solution is the only way to peace, and even if Netanyahu firmly believes in a two-state solution, it is prudent for him to pull back. Over the years, Israel has slowly backed down on positions and received little in return. The rampant anti-Zionism prevalent throughout the world has forced Israel to prematurely give up what should only be given up at the negotiating table. This has been a dangerous pattern for Israel, as it leaves the small nation with a weak hand for final negotiations. It is particularly worrisome in light of the fact that the current US President has not demonstrated the overwhelming support that Israel has experienced with past presidents.

For this reason, Netanyahu is right to step back from making a two-state solution a pre-condition to negotiations. Israel must regain political chips to play in the negotiating game (similar arguments can be made for continued settlement activity). It must set the playing field to ensure that negotiations lead to a final, stable peace, rather than a stepping stone to its eventual destruction.

Netanyahu seems to be accomplishing this. His words were elegant. He did not come out with fire and brimstone, but spoke firmly from a strong position. He is willing to work with the Palestinians, but not be a push-over. He will surely be condemned throughout the world. However, he has shown that he will not fold in the face of Obama. For this he must be commended.