Can We Get Real About Israel?
The attack by Israel on a six ship convoy of Turkish flagged ships full of Gaza-bound medical and relief supplies on May 31st, 2010, was the latest in a long string of overly aggressive military actions by Israel. We at The-Party-of-Common-Sense.org believe it is time for the United States to pull its unconditional support for Israel and to start providing tough love. Don't get us wrong, Israel is still a democracy and ally of America and its existence should be guaranteed by America, however, the US needs to take a hard line and insist on behavior in accordance with international norms. Israel needs to recognize that its intransience and belligerence is preventing, rather than helping, its own cause and desire for peace. Demonstrating the difference between Israel's siege mentality and that of the rest of the world was made clear with the Israeli Ambassador’s remarks in regards to the attack: In an interview with Fox News, the Israeli Ambassador described the operation in which nine people died, as "perfectly legal, perfectly humane - and very responsible". Compare this with the rest of world's response, including the United States' United Nation representative that expressed "regret for the loss of human life". In a set of cyclical events, Israel siege mentality is used to justify otherwise unacceptable actions, which the US continues to support unconditionally. Then the Israeli actions are used to by extremists to justify additional attacks against Israel and its allies (including America). These attacks reinforce our unconditional support and the Israeli siege mentality, which provokes Israel into another round of unacceptable actions.
Israel's existence was born of an ironic combination of prejudice and guilt. In 1896, Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian journalist advocated a Jewish homeland in Palestine as a solution to growing anti-Semitism. The first step in realizing The Zionist Conference dream was Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917, which also called for a Jewish homeland in the area that was then British Palestine. Largely the result of lobbying by leaders of the British Jewish community including Baron Rothschild, it wasn't entirely altruistic, since anti-Semitism wasn't just confined to Germany. In 1947, the goal of creating a Jewish homeland was turned over to the United Nations, which resulted in the Resolution 181: the United Nations' Partition Plan for Palestine. In 1948, immediately after the founding of the State of Israel, Arab armies attacked resulting in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and an Israeli victory. It should be remembered that Israel was not alone in its creation by colonial powers, especially the British Empire and many of these have not been without conflict. The separation of Indian and Pakistan resulted in the predominately Muslim Kashmir province being given to predominately Hindi India, which has resulted in three wars and is still a major issue between Pakistan and India today. Enduring centuries of prejudice and persecution culminating with the Holocaust, the Jewish people are victims. But the Palestinians are victims too - a people who lost their houses and homeland without being asked their input. In this conflict, both sides view themselves as the victims, and the other side as the protagonists. Two more protagonists, neither of which can claim victimhood, figure into the struggle. The first is the Arab nations, who supported the Palestine cause, have attacked Israel three times and although they lost each time, even today, they continue to fund, arm, and provide moral support to the displaced Palestinian liberation groups such as the Hamas and Hezbollah. Curiously, although most Arab nations profess profound support and allegiance toward the Palestinians and the Palestinian cause, no Arab nation has gone as far as to offer resettlement lands. The second is Western countries, largely led by America, whose guilt at having allowed the Holocaust has resulted in the unconditional support of Israel that provides the counterbalance to the Palestinian nationalists.
Americans must remember that our unconditional support of Israel is a standard cause cited by Islamic extremists to justify doing America harm. This is not to minimize other factors such as oil, support of Arab dictators, and Anglo-American interventionism that are major contributors to Islamic Extremism. However, at The-Party-For-Common-Sense.org we believe America should look out for its own interests and must either let Israel act on its own and suffer the consequences, or insist Israel maintains restraint and the moral high ground.
Israel has proven its strength and ability to stand on its own, winning multiple wars against its Arab foes. They have the strongest military in the Middle East and the ultimate deterrent, a nuclear weapon, both of which have been developed with American help. They have a first world economy, also built with American assistance. And in exchange for this American support Israel has been caught repeatedly spying on the US and continues to put the US in awkward situations internationally, defending actions that fall well outside international norms. Primarily looking after its own interests, it would seem rational and reasonable for the United States to demand more from the relationship, and require Israel to change its ways if it is to continue to receive US support. So what needs to change?
For years, Israel has been operating outside international norms. We can start with the most recent international incident - the late May, 2010 attack on the Turkish flagged carriers that were trying to break the blockade of Gaza by delivering humanitarian supplies. Israel's tough stance in the attack, portrays Israel as a victim, and is contrary to common sense. In May, 1970 the Ohio National Guard used live fire against Anti-Vietnam unarmed protesters at Kent State University, ultimately killing four and injuring nine more. In May, 1972 the British Army killed fourteen unarmed civil rights protesters in Derry, Northern Ireland, including seven teenagers. Finally, in June, 1989 in the People’s Republic of China in a protest started by mourners of the pro-democracy, anti-corruption leader Hu Yaobang, the Chinese government massacred 241 (officially, although many estimates are much higher). In these cases, Kent State, Blood Sunday, and Tienniman Square, these names remain watchword against governmental abuse. All three are events where armed actors of a government faced off against lightly armed or unarmed citizens, with the resulting of the deaths of the protesting citizens that has been roundly criticized as being heavy handed. One might claim that the comparison is flawed, since Kent State, Bloody Sunday, and Tienniman Square were domestic in nature - the attacks on the Gaza convoy ships were not. However, let's examine the narrative:
A ship carrying humanitarian aid was attacked in international waters by armed Israeli commandos, resulting in the deaths of nine lightly armed sailors and the ship was forced to a friendly port where its cargo was confiscated.
Now replace the words "Israeli commandos" with Somali pirates and ask yourself how you feel about the event and how it might be portrayed in the media.
A ship carrying humanitarian aid was attacked in international waters by armed Somali pirates, resulting in the deaths of nine lightly armed sailors and the ship was forced to a friendly port where its cargo was confiscated.
Do it again, this time using "Iranian commandos" and the nature of the event changes again. What is different about the actors and one's visceral reaction to the same event? With each event, the reaction in the American community would likely change. The reaction of the US news media was one of acceptance, with the airing of a mostly Israel side of the story. In the case of the pirates, one can image a news story that would be highly critical, and with Iranian state actors reaction would apoplectic. One must keep in mind that the nature of the attack isn't changing in each of these scenarios, rather just the actors.
To compound the problem, a whitewash commission issued by Israel after studying the attack was typical. "The operation relied excessively on a single course of action, albeit a probable one, while no alternative courses of action were prepared for the event of more dangerous scenarios," and Naval commandos operated "properly, with professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness," the report said. "The use of live fire was justified." Did we expect anything else? When Israel finally relented to allow an international investigation, it refused to allow the interviewing of any participants. The attack on the humanitarian ships was not isolated. Consider the following.
Israel recently was implicated on an assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a leading Hamas figure that was found dead in his hotel room in Dubai on Jan 20, 2010. Six attackers have been identified through CCTV and were found to have forged British passports of British citizens currently living in Israel. The UK paper The Telegraph reported that Israel's foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman said there was "no reason to think it was Mossad" which carried out the alleged hit, but refused to issue a denial. Even the Israeli government, who finds it useful to project power beyond their borders, feels safe allowing insinuations and a virtual admission that they routinely go beyond international norms and international law.
In another recent action, Israel attacked the Gaza strip in the 1998-1999 Gaza War resulting in a 100:1 disproportionate kill ratio of Palestinians to Israelis. Furthermore, in that same event there have been claims of the killing of unarmed women and children and video footage of the use of phosphorous against a school being used to house UN refugees. In spite of overwhelming evidence as shown by in a by UN and Human Rights Watch reports1, initially the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) denied the use of phosphorus and ultimately provided a slap in the wrist to two officers2. Immediately following the same conflict, numerous stories of IDF soldiers looting and shooting unarmed civilians began to circulate. IDF whitewash reports were quickly issued to refute these claims3. In this example, Israel feels that providing a united front and defending itself publically is protecting itself, but in fact it's eroding its own position. Not only externally, as the rest of the world evaluates the facts and tires of the cover-ups and illegal acts, but also internally. If IDF soldiers know they can break the law, and will be unconditionally supported by Israeli political and military leadership, there is little reason for restraint. This logic against unconditional support is the same that needs to be applied to the United State's unconditional support and Israeli's wayward, illegal, and problematic actions. The loss of accountability is the equivalent of a parent that coddles a child's and tolerates unacceptable behavior. By making excuses and allowances, the child doesn't change his behaviors but continues to test the limits.
In the War in Lebanon with Hezbollah, Israel ended the war by performing the modern day equivalent of sowing the earth with salt - they dropped anti-personnel cluster bombs on residential areas4. Many of these unexploded mines awaited the returning citizens - often picked up by kids, or knocked loose by farmers or homeowners only to cause horrific injuries. Once again, this action is prohibited by international treaty, and the weapons in question were of US manufacturing origin, but the world largely gave Israel a pass.
In the 1967 Six-Day War, the Golan Heights were taken from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. Now they exist as "occupied territories", which under international law means that the occupier, Israel, is responsible for the well-being of the refugees in those territories. As mentioned previously on this site5, unless a two state solution is found Israel will be facing economic and demographic catastrophe. The embargo is largely punitive, including such items as cement. Since most of these materials included in the embargo that are needed for military purposes can be obtained are smuggled via tunnels (reluctantly allowed by all sides), the lack of cement really just harms the Gaza economy, keeping it mired in state of abject poverty. The embargo retards the economy, meaning that an exploding and idle youth demographic is without economic prospects - something that should frighten the Israeli state.
Like a parent that is enabling a child's bad behavior, the US continues to unconditionally support Israel, losing international credibility and inviting extremist attacks. Not only is this bad for the US, it also hurts Israel. Israel seems to believe that time is on its side. Right now it is experiencing relative peace. Largely untouched the latest global economic meltdown, it enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East. Meanwhile, terrorist bus bombings and rocket attacks have virtually ceased. Many in Israel see no reason to upset the status quo. There is the lingering belief among those on the Right in Israel that they will somehow be able to wrest control of all of Biblical Israel by slowing expanding settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights. Meanwhile, the left can lay claim to some victory that there isn't mass starvation in these occupied territories. However, neither side is taking into account the demographic time bomb of an exploding Palestinian population. Like a pressure cooker, the pressure of increasingly young, disillusioned, and unemployed population is building. In addition to internal pressures, external pressures are building as western nations are increasingly under attack by extremists using our support of Israel as an excuse and the necessity to constantly defend Israel's hardball tactics. Like the snapping of rubber band, some event, either perpetrated by Israel or by the Palestinians could be the breaking point where Israel may find that Israel that it went a step too far, and world's opinion changes against Israel.
The US, in its own interests, needs to put pressure on Israel to get real about peace prospects. Right now, Israel controls all the levers of power and can dictate its own terms. It is difficult to envision Israel's situation getting better, while one could envision any number of events that could turn world opinion against Israel. In spite of the dreams of those on the Right, Israel is not going to be able to squeeze the Palestinians out of the remaining occupied territories, since they have nowhere else to go. Time is not on the Israeli's side - never has Israel been in a better position and now is the time for Israel to cut the best peace deal while they can. Should the tables turn, and world opinion comes out against Israel, it may find itself without the partners that will support peace on Israeli terms. It is time that all sides stop kicking the can down the road, and get real about peace in the Middle East. If Israel continues to ignore the problem, it is up to the United States to put pressure on Israel for the benefit of all involved.
1 http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes
2 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7010851.ece
3 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/israeli-military-denies-war-crimes-gaza
4 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/world/middleeast/06cluster.html
5 http://www.thepartyofcommonsense.com/2008-December.aspx
A February, 2011 Update
The editors could help but notice that the United States used it's United Nations Security Council veto to block a resolution at the condemning Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories as an obstacle to peace.
The resolution, co-sponsored by 130 nations and supported by all the other 14 members of the Security Council, including Germany, France, Britain and the European Union, endorsed the Palestinian Authority's position: that Israel's settlements are illegal under international law, and Israel's refusal to halt their expansion prevents the negotiation of a resolution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
The US's ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Susan Rice explained her veto by saying that while she agreed that the settlements are illegitimate, the resolution harmed chances for peace talks. This seemed to be an especially odd position to take, since late last year the Obama administration announced that after 18 months it had finally reached a deal to get both the Israelis and Palistinians to the negotiating table. Courtesy of the US taxpayer, Israel would get 20 F-35 fights worth several billion US dollars, and Isreal would agree to the Palistinian requirement to have Isreal stop settlement building for a short 90 days. After the announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, dominated by right-wing parties, refused to honor the agreement, very publically snubbing President Obama and his administration.
