Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts

6.14.2010

Whitewashing theft, murder and crimes against humanity

The Guardian reports that:

Israel last night flouted pressure for an independent international inquiry into the lethal assault two weeks ago on a flotilla of ships attempting to break the blockade on Gaza, announcing an internal investigation with two foreign observers.

The White House gave its approval for the Israeli formula, which will be confirmed by the Israeli cabinet today.


The White House said last night that the Israeli inquiry meets the standard of "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation".

6.13.2010

The good news

Writing for Dissident Voice, Lauren Booth tells us that:

One of the most striking trends following the flotilla attack has been how quickly Israeli hasbara is being exposed by internet journalists. The doctored IOF audio clips, where amateurs with mock Arab accents hiss 'Go back to Auschwitz' to Israeli naval officers. Well they didn't take long to pull apart did they? Then there are the (so-pathetic-they're-almost-funny claims the flotilla was linked to Al Qaeda. I laughed out loud to read in an Israeli paper that humanitarian activist (and former US marine) Ken O'Keefe was going to Gaza to; 'train a commando unit in Hamas.' I know Ken fairly well. Quite frankly I'm not sure who should be more insulted by this stupidity him or Hamas? Either way flinging the words 'Hamas' 'Jihadists' and 'Israel's security' around is no longer having the same shock and awe effect on journalists or the public at large.

The internet now shapes the world's story, not the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

6.09.2010

Jews for Helen Thomas

The stalemate

When two dynamite trucks meet on a one-lane road

Ilan Pappé, writing for the Independent, describes without pathos and with great clarity the current predicament in Palestine:

Hamas, although the only government in the Arab world elected democratically by the people, has to be eliminated as a political as well as a military force. This is not only because it continues the struggle against the 40-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip by launching primitive missiles into Israel — more often than not in retaliation to an Israel killing of its activists in the West Bank. But it is mainly due to its political opposition for the kind of "peace" Israel wants to impose on the Palestinians.

The forced peace is not negotiable as far as the Israeli political elite is concerned, and it offers the Palestinians a limited control and sovereignty in the Gaza Strip and in parts of the West Bank. The Palestinians are asked to give up their struggle for self-determination and liberation in return for the establishment of three small Bantustans under tight Israeli control and supervision.

The official thinking in Israel, therefore, is that Hamas is a formidable obstacle for the imposition of such a peace. And thus the declared strategy is straightforward: starving and strangulating into submission the 1.5 million Palestinians living in the densest space in the world.

Briefly put, Israel not only wishes to affirm its imposition of an apartheid regime on the Palestinians, it also wants the Palestinians to consent to the existence of this regime, thus legitimizing it. How might they give their consent? Their affirmation of their subjection would issue from their repudiation of Hamas, which currently enjoys democratic legitimacy in Gaza and symbolic legitimacy among the Palestinians as a whole. Israel, of course, has neither. The problem here, of course, is this: Any regime imposed on a subject population cannot be legitimate save for that thinnest form of legitimacy possible, the acceptance by the ill-fated of a fait accompli. Lacking the power to defeat their fate, Israel wishes the Palestinians would embrace it. It is fortunate that any apartheid regime that requires violence to achieve and sustain itself will be morally and legally illegitimate. It cannot be otherwise when these forms of legitimacy require the consent of fully qualified citizens, just the kind of beings the imposed apartheid regime wishes to create in Gaza. The Israelis will never cleanse themselves of this stain, which can be thought of as the political equivalent of "original sin"

But illegitimacy and international reputation, sin and sinning do not seem to matter much to the Israeli elite. God seems to permit the state of Israel to murder whoever it wishes dead. We may confidently draw this conclusion from Israel's gratuitously violent Freedom Flotilla attacks and its post-attack rationalizations, as Pappé elaborates:

One would have thought that Israel's drastic decline in international reputation would prompt new thinking by its leaders. But the responses to the attack on the flotilla in the past few days indicate clearly that there is no hope for any significant shift in the official position. A firm commitment to continue the blockade, and a heroes' welcome to the soldiers who pirated the ship in the Mediterranean, show that the same politics would continue for a long time.

This is not surprising. The Barak-Netanyahu-Avigdor Lieberman government does not know any other way of responding to the reality in Palestine and Israel. The use of brutal force to impose your will and a hectic propaganda machine that describes it as self-defence, while demonising the half-starved people in Gaza and those who come to their aid as terrorists, is the only possible course for these politicians. The terrible consequences in human death and suffering of this determination do not concern them, nor does international condemnation.

Active and tacit international support for Israel are not elements of the problem, according to Pappé: "It would be wrong, however, to assume that American support and a feeble European response to Israeli criminal policies such as one pursued in Gaza are the main reasons for the protracted blockade and strangulation of Gaza." Pappé believes Israel's political culture to be the elemental cause:

What is probably most difficult to explain to readers around the world is how deeply these perceptions and attitudes are grounded in the Israeli psyche and mentality. And it is indeed difficult to comprehend how diametrically opposed are the common reactions in the UK, for instance, to such events to the emotions that it triggers inside the Israeli Jewish society.

Israel's cultural rigidity produces personal and collective (political) rigidity. The latter becomes evident in the fact that Israel negotiates by making non-negotiable demands which are morally repugnant to anyone who considers them without prejudice of any sort. And it is these non-negotiable demands which reveal the effort to impose a morally and legally dubious regime on the Palestinians:

The international response is based on the assumption that more forthcoming Palestinian concessions and a continued dialogue with the Israeli political elite will produce a new reality on the ground. The official discourse in the West is that a very reasonable and attainable solution is just around the corner if all sides would make one final effort: the two-state solution.

Nothing is further from the truth than this optimistic scenario. The only version of this solution that is acceptable to Israel is the one that both the tamed Palestine Authority in Ramallah and the more assertive Hamas in Gaza could never ever accept. It is an offer to imprison the Palestinians in stateless enclaves in return for ending their struggle.

Thus even before one discusses either an alternative solution — a single democratic state for all, which I support — or explores a more plausible, two-state settlement, one has to transform fundamentally the Israeli official and public mindset. This mentality is the principal barrier to a peaceful reconciliation in the torn land of Israel and Palestine.

Israel appears to have gained the apotheosis of an identity politics — a state that embodies the paranoid imagination.

6.07.2010

Helen Thomas retires

Long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas retired today after prompting strong criticism with these comments:

6.06.2010

Israel’s ‘peaceful’ pirates

The Associated Press reports thusly about the seizure of the MV Rachel Corrie:

Israeli forces seized a Gaza-bound aid vessel swiftly and without meeting resistance on Saturday, preventing it from breaking a naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled territory days after a similar effort turned bloody.

A resistance- and -violence free seizure benefited Israel because:

Israel has faced mounting international pressure to lift the blockade since Monday's deadly confrontation aboard a Turkish aid vessel headed for Gaza. But it stood by the embargo — which it says is needed to prevent the Islamic militant group from getting weapons — even as the Obama administration called the current restrictions "unsustainable."

The 1,200-ton Rachel Corrie, which was carrying 11 pro-Palestinian activists, nine crew and hundreds of tons of aid, was intercepted in international waters, about 20 miles (30 kilometers) from Gaza's shore and was being escorted to the nearby Israeli port of Ashdod, the military said.

So, the AP believes it peaceful for armed vessels to board with the intent to seize an unarmed and physically unthreatening ship as it sails in international waters, thus preventing the unarmed and physically unthreatening vessel from breaking a naval blockade and delivering the humanitarian aid cargo it carried.

As a matter of fact, the seizure of a ship by an armed and hostile force is an aggressive (not-peaceful) act by definition. It is also an instance of theft and an attack on the sovereignty of the country that provided a flag for the seized ship (Ireland in this instance). What the AP should have said is that Israeli commandos seized the MV Rachel Corrie without also murdering anyone on board that ship as it had murdered activists on the Freedom Flotilla earlier in the week.

It is noteworthy that the Israelis refused to call the MV Rachel Corrie by its name during the episode, using instead the name the ship sailed under before it was renamed the Rachel Corrie. The reason for this insult is obvious: Rachel Corrie was an activist murdered by the IDF while she attempted to defend a Palestinian home from demolition by an IDF bulldozer.

The AP also reports that: "The outcry over the aid ships has been a public relations nightmare for Israel, while giving Hamas a welcome boost and vastly improving prospects of at least easing the closure of the territory." Actually, condemnation of the initial seizure of aid ships sailing for Gaza occurred not because of the ships per se, but because of the criminal nature of Israel's occupation of Gaza, its blockade of Gaza, its attacks on Gaza, its piracy and murder in international waters. Israel effectively committed an act of war (or, more accurately, a casus foederis) on three NATO countries. The whole Freedom Flotilla event has not just provided Israel with a PR fiasco; it generated an external political crisis for the Israeli regime, a crisis attributable to crimes Israeli commits merely by violently imposing an Apartheid regime on the Palestinians, a regime that anticipates genocidal ethnic cleansing as one possible outcome.

6.05.2010

It’s controversial

Robert Fisk's latest:

I wasn't personally at all surprised at the killings on the Turkish ship [by the IDF]. In Lebanon, I've seen this indisciplined rabble of an army — as "elite" as the average rabble of Arab armies — shooting at civilians. I saw them watching the Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinians on the morning of 18 September (the last day of the slaughter) by their vicious Lebanese militia allies. I was present at the Qana massacre by Israeli gunners in 1996 — "Arabushim" (the equivalent of the abusive term "Ayrab" in English), one of the gunners called the 106 dead civilians, more than half of them children, in the Israeli press. Then the Israeli government of Nobel laureate Shimon Peres said there were terrorists among the dead civilians — totally untrue, but who cares? — and then came the second Qana massacre in 2006 and then the 2008-09 Gaza slaughter of 1,300 Palestinians, most of them children, and then...

Well, then came the Goldstone report, which found that Israeli troops (as well as Hamas) committed war crimes in Gaza, but this was condemned as anti-Semitic — poor old honourable Goldstone, himself a prominent Jewish jurist from South Africa, slandered as "an evil man" by the raving Al Dershowitz of Harvard — and was called "controversial" by the brave Obama administration. "Controversial", by the way, basically means "fuck you".

So, like regrettable, controversial means "fuck you." I hadn't realized….

Once again Israel flouts international law

The Guardian reports:

According to Israeli military accounts, commandos boarded the Rachel Corrie from naval vessels alongside rather than from helicopters, as happened in Monday's operation. They gained control of the boat within minutes.

The passengers and crew had already declared their intention not to resist.

In the aftermath, according to an Associated Press report, "Benjamin Netanyahu said…that he would 'not allow the establishment of an Iranian port in Gaza.'"

Really! When did Iran make known its plans to put a port in Gaza? Oh, right, this never happened. Netanyahu made it up.

Anyway, Israel's siege of the Palestinian territories is blatantly illegal. As Richard Falk states with respect to the Gaza War, "In my view the UN charter, and international law, does not give Israel the legal foundation for claiming self-defense." More specifically, because Israel effectively controls Gaza, Israel cannot claim to be at war with Gaza, the siege can be identified as a form of collective punishment and abuse of a subject population. Thus not only does Israel lack a legal right to determine what will and will not exist in Gaza, it is also criminally culpable for the situation found in that area.

Naturally, the attacks on the Freedom Flotilla were also illegal. As George Bisharat explained after the first but before the second attack: "The flotilla, carefully searched for arms before disembarkation, enjoyed the right of free navigation in international waters, and Israel had no legal justification to interrupt its peaceful mission." The attack was thus gratuitous. He went on to point out that:

Flotilla passengers were entitled to defend themselves against Israel's forcible boarding of the Mavi Marmara, whether or not Israeli commandos fired immediately on landing on the ship's deck, as the passengers maintain. Dropping 100 armed soldiers on a ship from the sky is not a peaceful maneuver. Nor can Israeli armed commandos claim self-defense, any more than a purse snatcher facing a victim who elects to fight back. Hence, Israel is culpable for the killings that followed.

The rule of law does not apply to Israel, it seems.

6.03.2010

Juan Cole calls out the Tea Party

He wrote:

Hey, Tea Party. A foreign navy boarded an unarmed ship flying the flag of a NATO member in international waters and shot dead an American citizen with four bullets to the head and one in the chest on Memorial Day. It did this while the head of the belligerent state was on his way to a state visit to Washington, DC, to be awarded a further $200 million in aid on top of the $3 billion of American taxpayer money the US gives away to him every year.

If you are not upset by this, your tea is weak, man. Weak.

More on the legitimacy of the Freedom Flotilla assault

Koch vs. Scahill


It’s sad but predictable…

Have the wounded and dead stopped bleeding?

While reporting on the Freedom Flotilla assault for FireDogLake, Tony Collings points out that:

Only three days since the deadly Israeli raid on the Gaza flotilla, already there are signs that American news media are beginning to lose interest in the story. While the BP oil spill understandably dominates much of the news, the Gaza story should also be getting continued media attention but instead is beginning to fade away, replaced by new stories such as the Gores' divorce, Sarah Palin's nosy neighbor, and a new murder by the suspect in the disappearance of Natalee Holloway. These may meet the water cooler test (what are people likely to talk about?) but not the public service standard (what do people need to know in a democracy to make enlightened policy decisions?).

As a former Middle East reporter for Newsweek and CNN, I know how quickly editors and producers lose interest in foreign news, but this is astounding. The few Gaza stories that are still being done are focusing on angles such as continuing protests abroad and policy discussions within the State Department on how to handle this crisis.

The IDF killed an American during the Freedom Flotilla assault

According to ABC News:

A U.S. citizen who lived in Turkey is among the nine people killed when Israeli commandos stormed a Turkish aid ship heading for the Gaza Strip, officials said today. The victim was identified as Furkan Dogan, 19, a Turkish-American. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, according to the Anatolian news agency.

Quote of the day

This one comes from Jonathan Cook and can be found in his recent CounterPunch article:

These trends [in Israel and with respect to the Palestine question] are likely only to deepen in the coming months and years, making Israel an ever greater pariah in the eyes of much of the world. The mad dog is baring his teeth, and it is high time the international community decided how to deal with him.

6.02.2010

Only the exceptional states need apply

Apply for what position? As it turns out, the truly exceptional states could provide the only rightful applicants for the one position that would suit them: Sovereigns who possess prerogatives and powers which, in some cases, span the globe.

More specifically, what is the nature of this kind of state?

They are — or, better, believe themselves to be — accountable to no one. It is not simply that they have unlimited rights which other states must recognize and respect. Rather, they believe themselves to exist in a condition that is beyond justice and responsibility. Thus they see their powers as intrinsically limited only by the natural environment when it refuses to bow to their will. As unlimited in this way, their imaginations are free to concoct projects that brook no opposition worth recognizing. They are autonomous, and self-creative. They do confront humanly constructed impediments, but these are considered facts that could be otherwise. The world's resources are theirs to use when and where they please and dare. They recognize a law or the law only when they believe such legality reflects and serves their ends.

Theirs is an absolute politics.

The exceptional states are those which strongly embrace Hobbes' "state of nature." It is a condition defined by war and fear. They not only embrace the state of nature but they also willingly live within it while also believing everyone else must remain subject to a system of law if not to the law as such. Only the exceptional states enact laws to which they are not subject. Others obey these laws and lawmakers. The exceptional act. They make history. Others just provide some of the stuff from which history is made. As stuff, they lesser sort have a place in the history made by the exceptional — inconsequential fodder.

There is no irony in the belief of the exceptional that they are not hypocrites because of their conflicting assignments of legal accountability. They are, they believe, merely recognizing the true order of the world. A few states are subjects; the rest are subjected to the rule of the few. It is a matter of who has the power and will to act as they please. The hypocrites, as they might say, are those who believe in the necessity of legality but who break with this belief and the commitment which follows from it whenever doing so suits them. Legality is merely one of their tools.

There are few truly exceptional states. I can identify at least three states which approach the abstract characterization of such a state that I have drawn above. They are: The United States, Israel and North Korea.

North Korea might be the special or degenerate case among the three. It, like Pol Pots' Cambodia, appears to be a grotesque example of that tragedy which marks revolutionary socialism in the 20th century. Its history is nearly unique and serves as a model for no one. And the country is now out of step with the times. Its predicaments make the regime untenable over the long term, for North Korea cannot credibly use the weapons it has or wants others to believe it has in order to blackmail the world indefinitely nor can it survive on its own, given the meager output of its economy. For North Korea to sustain itself, it required membership in the socialist world system, which no longer exists. In any case, North Korea's greatest threat was and remains to those over whom the North Korean state rules. Because of the limited nature of the threat posed by this state, the world now seemingly waits for the North Korean regime to collapse while hoping that it does not take anyone else with it when it does crash.

The same cannot be said for the United States — "Superpower," as Sheldon Wolin labels it — and Israel. They are not, like North Korea, a special (degenerate) case within the class of special cases. Both the United States and Israel are exemplary instances of the exceptional state category identified above. Why is this so?

Both are military and diplomatic powers, are considered legitimate by their citizens, are economically viable and are international powers. Consider the fact that neither cares a jot for its reputation, nor listens to the counsel provided by others. Nor, for that matter, can we expect either of the two to make a credible commitment to engage in civil discourse when confronting other states, to make a real effort to secure world peace, to participate in the rule of law as practiced by international institutions. They practice instead an imperial statecraft which uses as a resource without observing the spirit of an international civil society, of a project of world peace and of a practice of lawful governance. Their interests remain untempered by justice and mercy, by common sense and intellectual curiosity. They are, oddly enough, long-time allies who are perpetually at war with the world around them and at large, and who accept the reality of war as the human reality. They even seem to need and admire each other.

This, in any case, is the significance I drew from this report:

With much of the world expressing fury over the raid, the contrast with Washington's muted response could not have been more striking. 

"The situation is that they're so isolated right now that it's not only that we're the only ones who will stick up for them," said an American official. "We're the only ones who believe them — and what they're saying is true."

The official was referring to Israeli protestations — backed by Israel Defense Forces video — that their solders were attacked by passengers on a ship headed for Gaza with humanitarian aid, when they boarded the ship in what the Israelis concede were international waters.

And this pronouncement:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak visited the Shayetet 13 base in Atlit on Wednesday and praised the commandos who participated in the deadly raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla on Monday for carrying out their mission, Army Radio reported.

"You carried out the mission and prevented the flotilla from reaching Gaza," Barak said. "We need to always remember that we aren't North America or Western Europe, we live in the Middle East, in a place where there is no mercy for the weak and there aren't second chances for those who don't defend themselves. You were fighting for your lives – I saw it, and I heard it from your commanders."

And, for that matter, this political manifesto — the National Security Strategy of 2002 — from the George W. Bush White House:

Defending our Nation against its enemies is the first and fundamental commitment of the Federal Government. Today, that task has changed dramatically. Enemies in the past needed great armies and great industrial capabilities to endanger America. Now, shadowy networks of individuals can bring great chaos and suffering to our shores for less than it costs to purchase a single tank. Terrorists are organized to penetrate open societies and to turn the power of modern technologies against us.

To defeat this threat we must make use of every tool in our arsenal — military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing. The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration.

America will help nations that need our assistance in combating terror. And America will hold to account nations that are compromised by terror, including those who harbor terrorists — because the allies of terror are the enemies of civilization. The United States and countries cooperating with us must not allow the terrorists to develop new home bases. Together, we will seek to deny them sanctuary at every turn.

I could continue quoting such material indefinitely.

Today the world waits for the opportunity to assess Israel and America's response to the MV Rachel Corrie when it approaches Gaza. Will Israel dare to attack it? Will the United States support Israel no matter what it does? Will they collude in the commission of yet another war crime? Or, will they refuse play their parts in the confrontation that awaits them?

Whatever the path taken by the leaders of the two countries, we can be sure that they will have considered their interests in the matter.

6.01.2010

NATO’s response to Israel’s provocative attacks on its member states

Israel attacked four flagged ships belonging to NATO member states during the recent Freedom Flotilla terrorist attack:

Greece: The Eleftheri Mesogeios and Sfendoni

Turkey: The Gazze

USA: The Challenger I

The Challenger II, which was to be a member of the flotilla but which was sidelined by mechanical problems, also carries the American flag.

NATO's response to this attack on ships belonging to NATO members:

Today the North Atlantic Council (NAC) met for an extraordinary meeting to discuss the recent Israeli operation against ships bound for Gaza. There was an extensive exchange of views among Allies on all aspects of this tragic event.

I would like to express my deep regret over the loss of lives and the other casualties resulting from the use of force during the incident involving the convoy sailing to Gaza. I offer sincere condolences to the families of all victims and condemn the acts which have led to this tragedy. I add my voice to the calls by the United Nations and the European Union for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation into the incident.

As a matter of urgency, I also request the immediate release of the detained civilians and ships held by Israel.

Yet The North Atlantic Treaty states:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Article 6

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

So far, NATO's response has been, shall we say, measured….

Then and now

…and tomorrow?

In his recent Independent column, Robert Fisk wrote:

In 1948, our politicians — the Americans and the British — staged an airlift into Berlin. A starving population (our enemies only three years before) were surrounded by a brutal army, the Russians, who had erected a fence around the city. The Berlin airlift was one of the great moments in the Cold War. Our soldiers and our airmen risked and gave their lives for these starving Germans.

Incredible, isn't it? In those days, our politicians took decisions; our leaders took decisions to save lives. Messrs Attlee and Truman knew that Berlin was important in moral and human as well as political terms.

And today? It was people — ordinary people, Europeans, Americans, Holocaust survivors — yes, for heaven's sake, survivors of the Nazis — who took the decision to go to Gaza because their politicians and their statesmen had failed them.

….

And what does this [attack on the Freedom flotilla] say about Israel? Isn't Turkey a close ally of Israel? Is this what the Turks can expect? Now Israel's only ally in the Muslim world is saying this is a massacre — and Israel doesn't seem to care.

But then Israel didn't care when London and Canberra expelled Israeli diplomats after British and Australian passports were forged and then provided to the assassins of Hamas commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. It didn't care when it announced new Jewish settlements on occupied land in East Jerusalem while Joe Biden, the Vice-President of its erstwhile ally, the United States, was in town. Why should Israel care now?

How did we get to this point? Maybe because we all grew used to seeing the Israelis kill Arabs, maybe the Israelis grew used to killing Arabs. Now they kill Turks. Or Europeans. Something has changed in the Middle East these past 24 hours — and the Israelis (given their extraordinarily stupid political response to the slaughter) don't seem to have grasped what has happened. The world is tired of these outrages. Only the politicians are silent [emphasis added].

If something has changed in the Middle East, as Fisk suggests here, this change may be attributable to changes that have already occurred in the world at large, changes reflected in the attempt to break Israel's illegal and immoral blockade, in the willingness of the activists, diplomats, professional politicians and others on the ships who staked their lives in order to put the blockade into history's trash can. The world is no longer merely "tired of these outrages," as Fisk suggests; it appears to me to have produced the makings of a transnational, cross cultural movement which intends to put an end to the Palestinian Genocide, to call the situation by its proper name. In fact, Fisk suggests as much in his article. The international movement already exists; the questions have thus become: Will it grow and ultimately succeed?

Update

Ali Abunimah, a co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, writing for Aljezeera English, states clearly the point I wanted draw from Fisk's article:

Since Israel's invasion and massacre of over 1,400 people in Gaza 18 months ago, dubbed Operation Cast Lead, global civil society movements have stepped up their campaigns for justice and solidarity with Palestinians.

Governments, by contrast, carried on with business as usual, maintaining a complicit silence.

Israel's lethal attack on the Freedom Flotilla to Gaza may change that, spurring governments to follow the lead of their people and take unprecedented action to check Israel's growing lawlessness.

Writing for Haaretz, Anat Lapidot-Firilla adopts a realistic and well-tempered attitude towards Israel's Gaza siege and the blockade it includes:

In its latest, catastrophic attempt to enforce the Gaza siege, Israel has demonstrated that in fact, it is under siege — one it has imposed upon itself. Many Israelis are finding it hard to fathom the results of Monday's failed commando raid on the Turkish aid flotilla, which resulted in the deaths of foreign citizens. Those who believe that the blockade of the Gaza Strip must end, and even those who believe the operation was justified, realize that this is the time to reevaluate some of the anachronistic attitudes of those charged with defending the country.

The first attitude is based on the belief that it is possible to carry out a long-term blockade under the political conditions prevailing today internationally. Instead, the effectiveness of the blockade needs to be reexamined after having been in place for three years. Israel's security chiefs surely recognize that the flotillas to the Gaza Strip will not stop; rather, they will only intensify. The political and military leadership that decided to take over the ships behaved in a way befitting a different era. The struggle today takes place on the media battlefield and requires a corresponding solution.

Moreover, what will Israel do with the next flotilla? Or when the United States ceases to show understanding for Israel's position? Or when the number of casualties is higher? And what will the army do when countries like Turkey begin providing military escorts to such civilian flotillas? The military's response to this week's challenge suggests a lack of understanding of the nature of the conflict, and makes one wonder: Who endangers our security more? The human rights activists and the militants who have linked up with them, or those who determine Israel's defense policy?

Like Fisk, Lapidot-Firilla also recognizes that something has changed. Let us see if Israel's hard-right leaders learn from their blunder.

Last updated on June 4, 2010 at 6:51AM

Will there be harsh consequences for Israel?

Some are skeptical

From a Dawn editorial:

Given the nonchalance with which the Israeli military sheds civilian blood regularly as a matter of policy, one shouldn't be shocked by the grim drama that rocked the ships carrying aid and relief workers to the Gaza Strip on Monday morning. Israeli forces boarded the vessels and killed a number of passengers, even though the flotilla carried nothing but relief goods.


Save condemnations from around the world, one can reasonably be sure Israel will face no material consequences for this brutality on the seas.

Writing in Newsweek, Ben Adler considers America's tacit complicity in the massacre along with the probable consequences of this complicity:

When it comes to the U.S., those hoping that the deaths of nine foreign-aid workers will produce a notably different stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ought not to hold their breath. Current political circumstances, including the fact that this is an election year, make it very unlikely.

Just consider the difference in the statements by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and President Obama. "I condemn the violence, and Israel must explain," said Ban, while Obama was considerably more circumspect. The White House statement on Obama's call to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "The President expressed deep regret at the loss of life in today's incident, and concern for the wounded, many of whom are being treated in Israeli hospitals. The President also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances." This is not a paradigm shift, nor will it become one.

Update

Ahmed Amr believes that Israel and Netanyahu will suffer mildly if they suffer at all:

Anybody with half a brain should be able to figure out that this most recent Israeli atrocity was premeditated. Netanyahu will pay a price and there will be a price to pay but it will be paid in short term currency. Obama might or might not figure out that he gave away the store and walked away empty handed but with mid-term elections on the horizon, he'll still shield Israeli leaders from accountability for their war crimes. The relationship with Turkey will be strained and a few European foreign ministers will fume. The United States had no problem figuring out how to react to piracy with the Achille Lauro, but all they can muster up in response to this latest act of Israeli state terrorism is a benign statement of 'concern.' Washington might even work up the courage to ask the Israelis to conduct an inquiry. Israel will be ostracized for a few weeks but Netanyahu will have accomplished his goal by derailing yet another peace initiative and winning additional time to continue building settlements and dispossess the Palestinians of their native soil.

Update II

Writing for Foreign Policy in Focus, Stephen Zunes asserts:

Every time Israel's right-wing government engages in yet another outrageous violation of international legal norms, it is easy to think, "No way are they going to get away with it this time!" And yet, thanks to the White House, Congress and leading American pundits, somehow, they do.

Last update on June 3, 2010 at 9:37AM

Is Israel a lunatic state?

From the Jerusalem Post:

Israel will use more aggressive force in the future to prevent ships from breaking the sea blockade on the Gaza Strip, a top Navy commander told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

"We boarded the ship and were attacked as if it was a war," the officer said. "That will mean that we will have to come prepared in the future as if it was a war."

The bloody hands of Uncle Sam

Paul Craig Roberts condemns Barack Obama for America's complicity in the Freedom Flotilla terrorist attack:

As I write at 5pm on Monday, May 31, all day has passed since the early morning reports of the Israeli commando attack on the unarmed ships carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza, and there has been no response from President Obama except to say that he needed to learn "all the facts about this morning's tragic events" and that Israeli prime minister Netanyahu had canceled his plans to meet with him at the White House. Thus has Obama made America complicit once again in Israel's barbaric war crimes. Just as the US Congress voted to deep-six Judge Goldstone's report on Israel's war crimes committed in Israel's January 2009 invasion of Gaza, Obama has deep-sixed Israel's latest act of barbarism by pretending that he doesn't know what has happened.

No one in the world will believe that Israel attacked ships in international waters carrying Israeli citizens, a Nobel Laureate, elected politicians, and noted humanitarians bringing medicines and building materials to Palestinians in Gaza, who have been living in the rubble of their homes without repairs or medicines since January 2009, without first clearing the crime with its American protector. Without America's protection, Israel, a totally artificial state, could not exist. No one in the world will believe that America's spy apparatus did not detect the movement of the Israeli attack force toward the aid ships in international waters in an act of piracy, killing 20, wounding 50, and kidnapping the rest. Obama's pretense at ignorance confirms his complicity.

Once again the US government has permitted the Israeli state to murder good people known for their moral conscience. The Israeli state has declared that anyone with a moral conscience is an enemy of Israel, and every American president except Eisenhower and Carter has agreed.