[picapp align="center" wrap="false" link="term=News&iid=8967183" src="d/4/7/f/Palestinians_Protest_against_c247.JPG?adImageId=13057270&imageId=8967183" width="500" height="317" /]
[tweetmeme source="bassitone" only_single=false]
Well this is a mess for anyone who was hoping for the latest attempt at peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In case you haven’t heard about it by now, early this morning, Israel intercepted the “Freedom Flotilla”, an attempt by human-rights activists to get past Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip. In short, it was bloody, it looks bad, and it is certainly a big smear on the peace prospects. On the surface, it looks bad no matter how you slice it; the loss of life and the declared intentions of the convoy as an aid mission make this an absolute public-relations nightmare for the Israeli Defense Forces. As with all events of this magnitude, the devil is in the details; in this case, the original source of the violence, whether it was the activists or the Israeli commandos who stormed the flotilla, is critical in determining who is ultimately responsible.
Despite the competing claims, with countries around the world condemning the raid and Israel being called before the UN Security Council over the incident, the public relations momentum is clearly on the side of the human rights activists. Naturally, Israeli officials are all claiming the troops acted in self-defense, but at the very least the evidence points to excessive force being used against the flotilla. After all, why would they need to drop commandos on the flotilla as the first attempt to get them to stop? Apparently, the Israeli navy did try to convince the flotilla to divert to an Israeli port, but seriously, a commando strike first? It seems to me that someone in command was convinced that the unarmed activists were terrorists trying to reinforce Hamas, because a preemptive commando strike against the aid convoy only makes sense when viewed as a counter-terrorist operation.
In addition to that, the flotilla was allegedly attacked in international waters, which by treaty among most nations are open for the safe passage of anyone and everyone. It would have been one thing if the flotilla was stopped inside Israel’s territorial waters, but to be stopped in open ocean is a flagrant violation of several major international treaties. Oh, and Israeli officials are justifying the seizure outside its territory on national security reasons. What security reasons? This flotilla was well-publicized, and included among its passengers a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and several high-ranking European officials. I could understand Israel’s concerns if it were just organizations that were tied to the Hamas government in Gaza, but with such high publicity and the presence of people who could only stand for peace, any concerns of terrorism are baseless.
Diplomatic Woes
In addition to the UN action requested by Turkey, several nations demanded an explanation from their Israeli ambassador. According to the Huffington Post, Turkey did not stop at only calling on the UN Security Council to look into it, rather they appear to be playing the role of the primary victim in this incident. Following the incident, Turkey, a rare ally of Israel in the Middle East, canceled planned joint military exercises and declared Israel’s actions an instance of “state terrorism”, though the reactions worldwide were not limited to what I’ve already mentioned. Various nations have had massive protests, from Iran to Turkey and even in spots in the U.S., and many countries, including NATO, are demanding an inquiry into it.
Most notably, however, is the reaction from the United States, or should I say, the lack of one. Despite many countries in Europe and around the world condemning the raid and calling for an international investigation into it, the United States has not joined in those calls thus far. In fact, the word from the meeting of the Security Council on Monday night was that the United States was holding up the process because the U.S. delegation was waiting for word from Washington. Such clarifications are normal for major things like this, and given the stakes for America’s reputation on the international stage, completely expected. In fact, if this had happened two years ago, there would have been no stalling, but merely the threat of a U.S. veto of any Security Council measure seen as anti-Israel. Thus, it is welcome to see the delegation pause and request clarification on the American position from the State Department; our knee-jerk, absolute defense of Israel as foreign policy must end.
While we should support Israel, this “we support Israel no matter what happens” mentality is just problematic for the sake of greater Middle East engagement, not to mention un-American at the very core. After all, George Washington himself warned us about forming permanent, unchanging alliances with any foreign power. One could potentially include NATO in that warning, but at least with the other members of NATO our relationship is dynamic. George Washington could not have imagined the world we live in today, much less that anyone could so nearly exterminate a single people as Nazi Germany tried to do during World War II, but all the same doesn’t it seem odd that sometimes our relationship with Israel can almost compromise some of our declared foreign-policy values of supporting human rights worldwide? I understand the need to support democracy in the Middle East, and I of course know about the atrocities committed during World War II, but all the same, why do we stand by and let Israel try to make the lives of the Palestinians as miserable as possible? Don’t get me wrong: I support Israel and our country’s special relationship with Israel; we just need to update that relationship to better reflect the dynamics of Middle East diplomacy.
Just about everyone wants peace in the Middle East to happen; it will not happen until the Israel-Palestine problem is solved once and for all. Up until this raid happened, the prospects looked promising to achieve it, but now who knows? It is possible that the indirect negotiations will continue, where Israel and the Palestinian Authority negotiate through the U.S. acting as a mediator, but now the blockade of Gaza has been thrust into the forefront and must be dealt with along with the underlying issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A solution where both sides can be treated as equals in all respects is the only solution that will achieve a lasting peace. Such a solution must include security guarantees on both sides, as well as full trade and territorial rights, above all the right of both states to exist side-by-side.
While Hamas is indeed a terrorist organization, we must recognize that they initially came to power through the democratic process. Going after their sources of funding and weapons is perfectly acceptable and we should treat them as the terrorists they are. However, we must do it in a way that does not further radicalize the Palestinian people; they chose Hamas as an alternative to the perceived failings of the Fatah Party, and to encourage the Palestinian people to choose more moderate leadership in the future Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the broader international community must work together to improve conditions in the West Bank and Gaza while squeezing Hamas. Peace through engagement, rather than starvation and isolation, is the only true route to peace; in fact, the latter route, what seems to be the status quo, is a surefire way to make the problem worse. In our role as mediator in the indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, not to mention our role in promoting human rights and global peace and stability, the United States must take an active role in pushing for this change of pace.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=49dfba95-c33e-4e21-ae57-b8db72f16e21)
The Israel’s Quandary by The New Age of Politics, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
RSS
Twitter
Tumblr
Facebook
LinkedIn
Digg
