The Flotilla Incident and Gaza - More Revealed Beneath the Surface

"There is no starvation or acute medical crisis there, [but] malnutrition is creeping up, water treatment and sewage are problematic and the economy has been almost entirely shut down by the blockade."

Before the the tragic events of the Turkish flotilla fade into the past, and before the next conflict or incident causes a similar international uproar, it may be useful to just ask just a few more questions and make just a few more points about the incident. For example, it may be extremely revealing to compare what happened with this Turkish flotilla to a very different encounter that took place just a short time after that debacle at sea.

Just days after this tragedy, another ship, also sponsored by the same "Free Gaza" organization, also set sail for Gaza. This ship, called the Rachel Corrie - out of Ireland - also attempted to break the blockade, but In this case, no tragic deaths occurred. Of course, this story, which would have illustrated the procedures Israel goes through to have the contents of all ships bound for Gaza, did not get widespread attention at all. But while the story got little press, it is illustrative of the complexity of what is going on in this cat and mouse game being played by the Israeli government, Hamas, and their international allies.

If you were wondering why the result was so different, the answers are quite simple. As this account by Ethan Bronner in the Boston Globe reveals (Israel thwarts new attempt to break Gaza blockade: Commandos seize vessel peacefully) the Israeli government handled the situation in a much more subtle manner AND the government responsible for the ship agreed to a reasonable compromise.

For weeks after the Turkish flotilla incident, all you heard from Israel was how this tragedy didn't have to happen; how the ship that was boarded could have docked in Ashdod - just like the other five in the flotilla did - and unloaded its goods for inspection and shipment to Gaza. This had been the routine for similar confrontations with ships bound for Gaza. Unfortunately, no one seemed to latch on to the reasonableness of this argument - mainly due to the deaths that took place, the fact that the boarding took place in international waters, and that the boarding took place at night. But the other problem was that Israel never did a good job publicizing how goods brought to Gaza by aid ships actually did get in to Gaza. That left a void in the basic story - only to be filled in by video of commandos going in at night, outside of Israeli national waters, swooping down from helicopters. There was no way for Israeli's to be seen as anything but aggressors who were trying to hide their "despicable" actions from the world.

This was a disaster for Israel in terms of public perception, international legitimacy, and their ability to have their decisions respected or trusted by, well, anyone. But in light of the better approach AND the better result from the Rachel Corrie encounter at sea - when the Israelis communicated their intent with the government of Ireland and the government of Ireland saw the reasonableness of their request to dock the ship and transport approved goods after inspection. Clearly, this was not something the Turkish government was willing to do - and reasonable people must ask what this says about their motives with the flotilla and their ongoing motives toward Israel. But also, one must ask why it took this initial tragedy to make them re-think their admittedly faulty approach to the Turkish vessel. And if they are re-thinking their strategy why do progressives not get more credit for asking Israel to re-think how they approach such dilemmas. Maybe they were doing what they always do. Maybe they were seeing the provocation in the Turkish actions and returning it in kind. I mean, isn't that what the game has devolved into - "You want to provoke us? Fine. We'll show you what you get."

What other explanation can there be - can there ever be - other than "Oops." The point being - for all the anger we should rightly have toward Turkey, let's make sure we examine the approach to the Rachel Corrie and remind people that things could have been handled just a bit differently by Israel when it came to the Turkish incident. And in that "bit" of difference in all their actions, that is where Israel might have found less international condemnation. I hear Israeli's say all the time that nothing they could have done - in almost any situation - would have made a difference in public opinion. Well I disagree. I know many friends and colleagues who would also disagree. And I will always use examples like the Rachel Corrie confrontation to counter that position. And the line would be - "If you, yourselves, modify and "improve" your tactics regularly so you can show the world how "just" you are, then you are admitting that you DO care about how your actions are perceived. And if that is the case, don't attack other for suggesting improvements you can make sooner than you may have thought of them."

And so similar questions can be asked about the blockade in general. As the header quote states, it is true that no humanitarian crisis is taking place in Gaza. Yet, Israel is continually accused of "starving' or 'strangling' Gaza. While those terms are demonizing and inaccurate, they will continue as long as incidents like this take place and as long as public perception against Israel's respect for the law and dignity does not change. Interestingly, after the reaction to the flotilla incident, Israel finally acted to eliminate certain restrictions that progressives had been criticizing for some time. Certain food restrictions, left over from a version of the Gaza blockade that really was meant to psychologically impact the population - like jelly and some other incidentals - were recently lifted from the restricted items list. Many reasonable critics of Israel had said on numerous occasions that these were un-necessary, punitive, and did nothing but increase distrust. Less reasonable critics said this was a prime example of Israel's evil. Many even said, everything else is ok, but those restrictions must go because they are inhumane. (And for the record, yes, restricting things like Jelly is petty, and spiteful, but is not inhumane.)

And in an amusing twist, now that the restrictions have been lifted, much of the reaction was that the gesture was meaningless. That, my friends, is certainly a perfect example of how Israel just can't win. But to be fair to the critics, taking this off the table as something people can demonize Israel with IS IMPORTANT. And to be fair to all those who DO posses something called 'forethought,' we should be able to ask why the restrictions were kept in place at all? Didn't Israel realize how much it was harming their ability to reasonably argue for the necessity of the blockade? And if their response would be again, that they can never do anything right in the eyes of the UN, then why remove the restrictions at all. The point being that Israel and her "Israel, right or wrong" supporters can't have it both ways. If Israel, from time to time changes policies, based either on their own time table or a reaction to international demands, critics of those policies MUST be given more credence and NOT be labeled as anti-Israel. Is Israel anti-Israel since they just advocated a policy change that a month ago a peace-nick would have been vilified for suggesting?

Today, one can read about the Israeli release of reports on the build-up in Lebanon of Hezbollah strongholds in population centers in southern Lebanon. And as so many are reporting, this can be looked at in two ways. On the one hand, maybe Israel has gotten the point about gaining at least some support from the international community - before it actually has to take action. On the other, maybe they are just trying to convince the world about the perils of their neighborhood so that, in general, public opinion can be nudged just a bit. Whichever the intent, one must still ask an important question. If it seems to take such large scale tactical errors - ones that Israel herself has eventually admitted - like the entire Gaza war and the tactics used to board the Turkish flotilla vessel, why could they not have listened to critics earlier. One can only hope this will loosen up the dialogue around how the Israeli government should conduct itself - even if only to help the world better understand her plight. But don't hold your breath on that one.

All of a Sudden, Afghanistan's not going so well? Really?

Not for nuthin', but my April post on Afghanistan seemed to fly in the face of what other's were claiming as our "success" in the region. Lo and behold, a couple of months later, it turns out you really can predict the future by knowing the past and by knowing the way our military leaders refuse to learn from it. Who knows what "success" or even General Patreaus's "progress" even look like? My only real question is, if it is now clear we don't know what we want, how can any realist plans be made to get there? We will just keep trudging along - trying this - and trying that - only to face the same problem - which is that no one wants us there. Those who are violently opposed to our being there will kill anyone who collaborates, and those who may actually want to see a change in government still blame us for the violence. We cannot solve every problem in the world and the Bush strategy of "getting them over there so they don't come here" now seems as outdated as the cold war itself.

We should leave - sooner rather than later. And the reason is clear. With some philosophy of protecting the US or defeating the Taliban (who many want to believe are interchangeable with Al Queda) we are simply sending Americans into harms way with no clear benefit in sight. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Hell, even Iraq isn't Iraq. How many people died in Iraq over the past two weeks from bombings? Whether we seem to care or know about this is not the issue. The issue is that for all our money and all the lives wasted and for all the "surges" and strategies. Both places may only be marginally better for us having been there. And I repeat, MAY be different. It is entirely likely that both places will have a militant religious group in power, either running things or instilling enough fear so to have their way. We need to face that we cannot remake the Middle East anymore than Europe could and move on. Containment from abroad may be the better policy, as it most likely was when were containing Iraq before our invasion. But I'm just saying.

Middle East Focus - Natanyahu and Barak put West Bank settlement freeze back on the table

- - -

Media sources today are reporting comments from Israeli government officials that a West Bank Settlement freeze may be acceptable under certain circumstances and as part of a larger commitment to obligations on the part of Arab nations and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

On the surface, this will both be applauded and ridiculed by all sides. (What else is new?) But at a deeper level, this is very reflective of analysis that has appeared in this blog before. It is both not what any "side" will be happy with - and at the same time a brilliant political move by the Netanyahu government. It is also, I believe, a very rational and effective position in the long run.

If you take a close read not at the headline, but at the commentary by Defense minister Barak, you will see some of what "The Cohen Side" has been expressing all along. While I am generally no fan of the Netanyahu approach and lack of subtle nuance, this calculation, along with his recent endorsement of some kind of Palestinian state must be applauded.

Rather than come into office with the policies of a Palestinian State and Settlement Freezes on his table, he took them off. And I say this with precise language because for the previous 15 years, those were dead center on the table. Any commentary to the contrary is just false. Both the Camp David Accord proposals and the Sharon, Ohlmert and Livni government had been waving those flags of accommodation for quite some time.

Netanyahu's position was actually very rational and understandable. His stance was - look - we gave up Gaza, we have been offering this for some time, and what has it gotten us? We actually are criticized even MORE. We are demonized even MORE. We are bombed even MORE. And add to all that, the Palestinian Leadership is fractured, in practical Civil War, and even MORE dissatisfied. Now I am not saying all that is correct or a perfect policy stance. But it was genuine, honest, and in many ways dead on. How could any responsible Israeli leader envision a Palestinian government in the foreseeable future that would NOT be at risk of Hamas takeover. And if that was the case how could anyone talk about a state - much less a fully independent and armed one. And if that was the case, why would a leader bring normal life to a halt in the settlements, when this "limbo" may last for quite some time.

Again, it may not be the policy that makes the west or the left happy, but it made sense. It simply begs the question - could we please see some movement on the other side before we commit to what may be a suicidal policy of acknowledging a Hamas state on our border. In stark terms, that really was what was at stake.

So first we had a switch in policy that made Obama happy, but really didn't change much. I mean it did - because Netanyahu crossed that bridge he was asked to cross. But he maintained the reservations I spoke about above. And in many ways, the agenda is now more centered. We can say that Israel has supported a Palestinian state for the past 15 years, and he can say that he put front and center the pitfalls associated with that prospect under the current political realities.

And now in a similar way, Netanyahu and Ehud Barak have helped to do the same thing with settlements. They have put it back on the table (because it never really left) but it is now a more centered agenda - which is what it always should have been. What the Obama administration really wanted, when they said "complete freeze" was an end to illegitimate land takings, and end to construction for new settlers, and some show of willingness to budge on the part of Netanyahu. They got all that, but Netanyahu got what many on the right and the center wanted. An acknowledgement that if some settlements have always been designated (by Israel and the P.A.) to remain a part of Israel - why should construction in that defined area stop? Many on the left said it would send a better signal to the Palestinians. These people, I am afraid, don't really understand the game of signals in the Middle East. A better signal is the one that makes sense and is honest. And now what is on the table is not perfect, but a better and more rational starting point for Israel AND for long-term peace.

And as much criticism as this will get - precisely for the reasons I praise - it is now possible to soften this position in further negotiation. Rather than a rather black and white "freeze on all settlements" which is actually a meaningless phrase in reality, there will be a freeze on some of the activity that more people in the center believe should have been frozen in the first place.

To hear more about these views, please tune in to WDIS - AM 1170 today as David will discuss this further on the Chuck Morse show.

- - -

Middle East Focus - Mara Rudman and Positive Steps Toward Two States

- - -

Reports that Mara Rudman will be heading the US "Dream Team" focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are very encouraging. Mara was in Boston over the winter to address a group at the local Jewish federation. I found her so engaging, I kept in touch with her, asked her serious question and got serious responses. To quote Bill Maher "You've got to give Obama some credit ... he's appointing people that you only used to read about in the paper ... and of course its good to know someone in this administration is actually reading the paper."

Here is a link to learn more about Mara Rudman's background and gravitas. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/05/19/relentless_player_to_push_for_palestinian_state/

But now I want to talk more about WHY this is a good thing and WHY it is still important to read through the MEDIA BIAS over why THEY think its a good thing. Consider this my "MIDDLE EAST USER"S GUIDE" entry for May 20, 2009. (Oh - and Happy Birthday Caryn!)

I am still furious about the coverage Obama's meeting with Netanyahu and Rudman's appointment is getting. Jeff Jacoby tackled this issue a bit in his piece in the globe today, but I won't even provide the link because I DON'T want you to read his column. He is part of the old "knee jerk crowd" that looks at the past few days and simply says "There won't be peace, and its the Palestinians fault." My objective to is to point out why peace will be so challenging, point out where it is the Palestinians' fault, where its the Israeli's fault, and where you and I can have a role in bypassing the dialogue of blame. In fact this week is a PERFECT example of why this approach is so necessary.

As I wrote in my previous entry, the coverage of the past few days would have you believe that these talks were only about getting Netanyahu to say yes to a two state solution. Even on the front page of the globe, you would think that Israel's past four Prime Ministers, the Knesset and the majority of people in the street hadn't been screaming 'TWO STATE SOLUTION" from the hills for the PAST 15 YEARS.

I can only imagine what these talks would have been about if Tzipi Livni and the Kadima party had gotten just a little more support in the past elections. We would probably be talking about borders, timetables, and the ball would be squarely in the Palestinians court as it has been for the past 15 years. But the reason I can't in good conscience write about that first, and the reason Bibi doesn't want to talk about that first is clear.

Please, I challenge you, read the press about the past weeks statements from Hamas leaders, and representatives of the Palestinian Authority. Following the Obama-Netanyahu meeting a Hamas spokesman stated that "What we've seen is a continued development of the Zionist-American relationship at the expense of our people" and "Obama's statements and messages of hope are meant to mislead global public opinion regarding the continued existence and conduct of the racist and extremist Zionist entity."

These are the leaders whom the rest of the world want Netanyahu and Israel to be comfortable with as leaders in a future Palestinian state. Please read the comments by President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-Israeli-Prime-Minister-Netanyahu-in-press-availability/

Similarly to what my entry said, Netanyahu - and Rudman - both acknowledge that there has to be a way to make an end around the extremists that really hold this whole process hostage. No reasonable person would allow - as it is currently constituted - this Hamas government to ultimately hold power. And in case you didn't know, talks in Egypt between Hamas and Fatah (the group currently in charge in the West Bank) fell through yesterday. THERE IS NOT EVEN A GOVERNMENT TO TALK TO RIGHT NOW AND PEOPLE ARE PORTRAYING ISRAEL AS UNWILLING. The recent leader of Fatah, amid these internal problems acknowledged HIMSELF yesterday that NOW MAY NOT BE THE right time for negotiations. Even Palestinians know this. Why does the rest of the world not want to see it. This is a microcosm of the problem we face in America and Europe. People are so eager to see a solution, that they don't want to look closely at the facts (sound familiar folks).

Now does that mean an overthrow? No. Does that mean some kind of violent incursion? Probably not. (Although think of this when you try to evaluate the Gaza incursion ... What if Israel had somehow defeated Hamas? Think of the door that would be open right now. Don't think for a second that wasn't more on the minds of Israeli leaders than what the media and anti-Israel crowd portrayed. Yes - a high cost for pa ossible future for Palestinians and Israelis. But yes, Israel's leaders do think like that and make those difficult choices daily).

What it does mean is that with people like George Mitchell and Mara Rudman in place, Hamas will be held accountable. They may still be allowed to save face, and be the face of the government, but they will have to change. The Northern Ireland model is the one we have to look at most closely. Remember Shin Fein, "The Political Wing of the IRA". The extremists were slowly marginalized by the international community. The semantics of creating a body NOT committed to violence allowed the wackos to wither on the vine if you will. I am not saying this is entirely possible in this middle east context, but it is the ONLY path that holds merit. And this is why Mitchell and Rudman were brought in. And by the way, this is why Obama's view on Iran is slightly backward. Having fewer arms to throw down and less money to re-arm would be a huge boost to making this process a lragely non-violent one.

But in our daily conversations, understanding this is not enough. If the daily barrage, and the occasional dinner conversation keeps coming back to "Bibi won't say Two States." You need to be able to respond. Why you ask? Because the only way to achieve the solution above, which includs the marginalization of the TRUE extremists in this situation, it must begin at home, and on the ground. The more the networks of extremists feel accepted at home and abroad, the longer they will stay in power. WE DO HAVE A ROLE HERE. I recently asked a crowd I spoke to, to begin taking stands; to read and educate yourself. Acknowledge the faults Israel has to account for. Acknowledge that Bibi not saying the words is a PR nightmare. But DO NOT let others who think they know what's going on shape the argument. If any speaker describes the "Zionist entity" as an evil one, or a racist failed project, you know where they are going. Stand up, prepare to leave, tell them why, and leave. Talk to your friends about the past 15 years of that open door for a two state solution. Talk to your friends about the need for Hamas to cease its language of destruction AND for Bibi to join the rest of the country and almost every other leader. DO NOT let the context be WHAT WILL ISRAEL DO. Return the discussion to what will BOTH SIDES do! Use the Northern Ireland model and the very real way Obama has put it into play. England made compromises. The IRA disarmed for the most part. But both sides only budged after neutral parties helped build trust and provide assurances, timetables, and goals.

The added benefit here is that Obama is seen much more as a neutral party. But again, don't let the fact that Bush's policy of backing Israel all the time, means Israel spent the past eight years perpetrating evil while the US looked the other way. NO. The US looked the other way, and for the most part, Israel still acted in good faith. They did not do enough about settlements, they did not do enough to encourage trust, but they also do not routinely call for the destruction of Palestinians and their state. They acknowledge the dual claim to the land and simply want to end the role extremists have played in derailing all their efforts. And let me be clear about this one last point. When people ask how Israeli's can just "go on" with their lives when Palestinians are suffering. As with most issues, Israeli's look at that differently. They do not see the extremists losong control any time soon nor do they feel the hatred for Israels very presence diminishing any time soon. And so their ONLY option is to LIVE. To yes, build homes in disputed land. To yes, create whatever security measures they think they need to LIVE like the Western Democracy they strive to be. To yes, wage war when they feel it just. This is Israel in 2009.

Hopefully, Mitchell, Rudman, and Obama, can create that momentum and trust so that extremism can wither away in the leadership of the Palestinians. That is what the media should be talking about today, that is what average Palestinians really dream of, and that is why YOU need to be talking about it every chance you get.

- - -

Middle East Focus: New and Improved US/Israel Relations - A Users Guide

- - -

As President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu prepare to meet, it is a shame that the context put forth in the media is almost completely about Netanyahu's point of view and what he will and will not say. It is as if the past 15 years of Israel clearly paving the way for a Palestinian state mean nothing.

But then again, Israel is used to having its History and what it did for peace 30 seconds ago ignored and forgotten by much of the world.

So I wanted to take this opportunity to begin a series of entries that will do what so many of my friends and colleagues ask me quite frequently - give us all some language we can use to talk about Israel without sounding like a brainwashed, Israel-right-or-wrong Stepford wife (or husband as the case may be).

The key to doing this, of course, is to make sure you are always doling out legitimate criticism of Israel's actions at the same time you asking for understanding about her predicament and the almost incessant Catch 22's she finds herself in.

My first one has already presented itself:

1) Yes, Netanyahu has expressed reservations about proclaiming his support for a Palestinian state. In the world of diplomacy, this is a disaster. It helps put the spotlight on those who have been saying for 15 years that Israel isn't serious about a Two State Solution. It also allows the world to believe that maybe Israel hasn't been serious. But friends, DO NOT BE DETERRED. The truth is that no election or 2009 policy can change HISTORY. Israel has been holding a door open for a two state solution for 15 years. It was a major door to hold open since so many thought it crazy. So many thought that any sovereign land held by Palestinians would be a staging ground for terrorism and attacks on Israel. And yes, those people, like Bibi, seemed to have been vindicated by Gaza.

2) Yes, Gaza does give many pause to be SO committed to the Two State Solution as Kadima was. They felt burned and they feel that there should have to be SOME change in how Hamas acts as a partner before we feel comfortable with them as any part of a future Palestinian sovereign state. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. And this is what is so difficult to navigate. Of course Israel could have handled the Gaza withdrawal better. But more people need to understand (and be talked to by well-meaning and level headed supporters of Israel) that Israel wants to be able to hand over sovereignty in theory to the Palestinian people and allow the creation of a Palestinian state. Unfortunately, the reality that presents itself is truly horrific for the people of Israel. I say this not because of any bias or racism on their part (even though it is there). I say this because of the word I use over and over - DISTRUST AND DAMN GOOD REASONS FOR IT - ON BOTH SIDES. This is why Bibi should legitimately be able to say - hold on a minute - before just committing to a State when the nature of its leadership is so in doubt.

3) Why is it so hard for people around the world to understand that Israel IS actually threatened by the VERY REAL words of Hamas and Fatah leaders, that talk about - not reconciliation with Israel - but her ultimate destruction? Why is that fact so downplayed along with the threats from Iran. Why do people not know about or routinely ignore these very important problems?

• 3a ... My first real answer. Those who have no knowledge of the prevalence of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment in the world outside of the United States, and how it is actually one in the same outside of the United States, will never understand how a Jewish person or Israeli sees and feels the pressure of that VERY REAL animosity.

• 3b ... My second real answer. Despite that very real pressure and the very real threat it creates, when well off Jewish Americans and Israelis sit and ponder, and speak of threats to Israel and Jews, IT IS NOT RIGHT to compare the way we feel threatened with the way a Palestinian feels in the West Bank and Gaza. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. It does not mean that one is better than the other. It is simply apples and oranges and will never CONVINCE anyone of the validity of the case for Israel. It comes down to this - In the West Bank, the standard of living is not good. Checkpoints are annoying, inconvenient and infuriating. Israeli soldiers often do seek to humiliate or simply have the effect of humiliating those they stop or interrogate. It does seem to the West like "Extreme Racial Profiling" and clear Occupation. In Gaza, the impact of the war on the Palestinian psyche was simple. "We are weak, we don't want to be weak, and Israel shoved it in our faces. As a result of this, too many of us died and we will always blame Israel and not Hamas." When you come to grips with the harsh reality that what I just described can NEVER be trumped by the situation in Sderot, or by the "threat" of terrorism Israeli's feel on a daily basis in 2009. IT JUST CANNOT COMPARE.

• 3c ... My third real answer. What people seem to forget is that the gauge of suffering is skewed. Because Israel is the one with the army and the apparent upper hand, no mention of Sderot or Terrorism will convince anyone. It needs to be made clear, that the territories have evolved from the over-sized refugee camps the Jordanians and Egyptians set them up as. In the meantime, Israel, a very long time ago set itself on a path, with a vision and a goal. It prospered, developed, and is a beacon of progress to Jews, Arabs, and all those who live and travel within the "green line." This only happened because of how seriously it protected those borders from enemies who sought to destroy her. And so now, in 2009, its standard, and definition of itself as a safe, secure and prosperous country does not include shells coming in from any neighbor. This standard is fairly universal in Western countries, yet I just read the other day by a "lefty" writer this phrase .. "The Katushas had almost all stopped, what was Israel's problem." Now I am not exactly sure what this person's definition of "almost all" was, but I actually have no problem with the fact that Israel's standard of safety is not "Well its only a couple of shells a day - looks like we can move ahead with our plans for peace." Where Israel wants NO threat of terrorism, and Israel seeks to have NO neighbors who even whisper about its annihilation, others would say - that is too high a standard. Others would say, "Israel, you shouldn't care what your neighbors say, or do, you should just give them all what they want, now." We need to be able to speak to our friends, not in the context of this argument - but in the context of a country who is so much like the United States. Once we can do that, we shift the discussion from who has the power to "What would Denmark do? And what would Germany do if they didn't like what Denmark did?" Only when you do that do you also see that as problematic as it is to build a house in a settlement that 5 peace plans say will be part of Israel in the future - "problematic house building" would never be a justification for Germany to send missiles into Denmark. We need to be able to acknowledge what more needs to be done to set the conditions for peace, while never relenting that Israel's standard for trust and comfort is the same as any countries would be - be they Denmark, Germany, or the United States.

- - -