A story broke last week that has flown under the radar in the United States: Egypt intends to permanently open the Rafah border crossing with Gaza on May 28, functionally breaking the Israeli "siege" of Gaza and allowing a free flow of goods and people into and out of the territory. The Israeli government is understandably concerned about this, fearing that weapons will flow into Gaza at even greater rate than they do now. Additionally, concerns about the future of Egypt's government and the extent to which it will feature entities like the Muslim Brotherhood that are sympathetic to Hamas and are actively promoting autocratic rule in Egypt.
The concerns about the Rafah border are justified and will be a subject of another post. What I want to focus is on is the subject of this article. After the Mavi Marmara incident last year, I find myself puzzled as to the need for continued flotillas after the Rafah border opens. Indeed, I have previously stated that I was surprised that the "Gaza flotillas" never attempted to send aid through Egypt instead of intentionally creating confrontations against Israel in order to bring international disdain on Israel.
Now, if the Rafah border is open, functionally lifting Gaza's siege, what is the continued justification for such flotillas? Indeed, I would be utterly shocked if the Rafah border opening had any affect on the "peace activists" who try to confront the Israelis. Indeed, if the flotilla participants were interested in providing humanitarian aid, they always could have sent it through Israel or at least through the Egyptians. And of course, the token humanitarian efforts of the flotillas are minuscule compared to the substantial resources that Israel pours into Gaza (electricity and food being primary forms of aid).
If the flotillas continue after May 28, it will only prove what has always been true: the aid flotillas have always been about provoking Israel's military to try to harm its international reputation. The disciple of the IDF has generally prevented significant casualties even when the "peace activists" have attacked Israel's soldiers. Indeed, the flotillas are similar to the civilian border breaches on May 15 of this year, which are explicit violations of Israel's sovereignty and are primarily designed to see how far they can push the Israelis. Morocco has substantially restricted third party access to Western Sahara much how Sri Lanka's military prevented any attempts to arm or aid the Tamil Tigers and Indonesia restricted access to East Timor from 1975 to 2002.
Unlike the Polisario Front, the Tamil Tigers and the East Timorese independence movement, the Palestinians seek not only to liberate their own land but also to destroy Israel. Therefore, anyone giving aid to the Hamas government must be seen as actively aiding in Hamas and Fatah's mission to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. In the wake of the Rafah crossing opening, it is no longer possible to argue that Gaza is cut off from another nation through which goods can flow. Any such aid flotilla that sails into Israel's territorial waters must now be definitively viewed as an attack on Israel's sovereignty and an attempt to arm a "government" that seeks to make war with Israel. After May 28, why else would they possibly be sailing if not as an act of war and provocation?
The concerns about the Rafah border are justified and will be a subject of another post. What I want to focus is on is the subject of this article. After the Mavi Marmara incident last year, I find myself puzzled as to the need for continued flotillas after the Rafah border opens. Indeed, I have previously stated that I was surprised that the "Gaza flotillas" never attempted to send aid through Egypt instead of intentionally creating confrontations against Israel in order to bring international disdain on Israel.
Now, if the Rafah border is open, functionally lifting Gaza's siege, what is the continued justification for such flotillas? Indeed, I would be utterly shocked if the Rafah border opening had any affect on the "peace activists" who try to confront the Israelis. Indeed, if the flotilla participants were interested in providing humanitarian aid, they always could have sent it through Israel or at least through the Egyptians. And of course, the token humanitarian efforts of the flotillas are minuscule compared to the substantial resources that Israel pours into Gaza (electricity and food being primary forms of aid).
If the flotillas continue after May 28, it will only prove what has always been true: the aid flotillas have always been about provoking Israel's military to try to harm its international reputation. The disciple of the IDF has generally prevented significant casualties even when the "peace activists" have attacked Israel's soldiers. Indeed, the flotillas are similar to the civilian border breaches on May 15 of this year, which are explicit violations of Israel's sovereignty and are primarily designed to see how far they can push the Israelis. Morocco has substantially restricted third party access to Western Sahara much how Sri Lanka's military prevented any attempts to arm or aid the Tamil Tigers and Indonesia restricted access to East Timor from 1975 to 2002.
Unlike the Polisario Front, the Tamil Tigers and the East Timorese independence movement, the Palestinians seek not only to liberate their own land but also to destroy Israel. Therefore, anyone giving aid to the Hamas government must be seen as actively aiding in Hamas and Fatah's mission to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. In the wake of the Rafah crossing opening, it is no longer possible to argue that Gaza is cut off from another nation through which goods can flow. Any such aid flotilla that sails into Israel's territorial waters must now be definitively viewed as an attack on Israel's sovereignty and an attempt to arm a "government" that seeks to make war with Israel. After May 28, why else would they possibly be sailing if not as an act of war and provocation?
15 comments:
Are you trying to make some sad joke here? The substantial aid Israel gives Gaza? Overpriced electricity, in insufficient quantity. The need created by Israels incessant bombing of Gaza and the blockade disabling their attempts the rebuild any infrastructure. The many weapons flowing into gaza? What about mentioning the billions of military aid supplied to Israel by America? What about a mention of the fact that Israel has appropriated most of the water in the area, the average water consumption of Israelis being four times that of an average Gazan and that small amount being grossly polluted due to Israeli over use. What about a mention of the total lack of medical supplies in Gaza due to the blockade. These are but a few reasons why Gaza needs aid and support. I find the laissez-faire attitude of you article quite sickening.
Let me ask you a more basic question: why does Israel owe Gaza anything? Why doesn't Egypt provide for Gaza? If things are as bad as you say, why don't their "Arab brothers" across Rafah help them? Israel could do NOTHING to stop the inflow of goods through Rafah, yet Egypt keeps it closed? Is it because deep down, the secret that the Arab world keeps hidden from the West is that they hate the Palestinians and are simply using them as a tool against Israel? That no Arab state has any interest in a Palestinian state because if they did, they could have formed one decades ago? If it were about aid and support, why doesn't it flow into Egypt?
The blockade is there because the DEMOCRATICALLY elected government of Gaza is in a state of war with Israel. Even you would admit that Hamas makes war on Israel and seeks to destroy, and this government was chosen by the people of Gaza to govern. With that come consequences, one of which is that Israel cannot sit idly by and watch Gaza stockpile arms to kidnap and kill Israelis.
As for water appropriation, what water? Gaza is on the ocean and if you are referring to water from the Jordan river, that is governed by a treaty with Jordan the country.
The central question I have for you is this: why should a country provide financial, medical and economic aid of any sort to a place that is sworn to destroy that country and makes active efforts to do so? If a Jew appeared in Gaza, he'd be shot and ripped to pieces. And yet, you want those same Jews to give their money to the same people who want to kill them? Why?
To answer your post: I do not suggest that Isrsel or Egypt support Gaza in any way, merely that Gaza be alloed to support itself. Under the current blockade Gaza can neither sell nor buy the goods needed to even retain a semblance of good health amongst its residents.
You refer to Gaza stockpiling arms. I fear the boot is on the other foot. Gaza has access to the weaponry it can clandestinely obtain or create with limited means. Israel has military funding of $3 billion per annum from the US, including, I might add, a large nuclear capability which they will not admit to. Israel attacks Gaza by means of F16 fighter planes, helicopter gunships, tanks, white phosphor and drones, can you say the same of Gazas attacks on Israel? The figures, freely available, deny your assertions regarding Gaza trying to destroy Israel. In the past 12 yrs twice as many Gazans have been killed by Israel as have Israelis been killed by Gazans and TEN TIMES the no injured.
With regard to your question 'what water'. The water of the coastal aquifer which runs under Gaza is first accessed by Israel, who overdraw on it. The Israelis, as you point out already have access to all of the water from the Jordan and also the mountain aquifer which supplies the West Bank, of which Israel commandeers 80%, leaving the West Bank a mere 20%. The West Bank has access to 70% of minimum human water needs, Gaza 90%, however, Gaza's needs are less adequately catered for since the water from the coastal aquifer is so badly polluted.
I suggest you make use of the many official reports available before publishing further disparaging articles regarding the needs of the men, women and many defenceless children of Gaza.
Let me ask you this, do you know why Israel blockaded Gaza to begin with? The people of Gaza elected a government that made war on Israel. Is your expectation that Israel would simply allow itself to be bombarded with rockets and freely allow suicide bombers and kidnappers to cross its borders? You must be joking.
Your point on "proportionality" is one of the most laughable aspects of this conflict. The fact that Hamas has inferior weaponry has nothing to do with their intent, which is to harm civilians and cause maximum damage. With Israel's available arms, they could carpet bomb Gaza and kill thousands in a matter of hours, yet they CHOOSE to behave in a restrained fashion. The fact that fewer Israelis die from Palestinian attacks has nothing do with the INTENT of the Palestinians to harm as many civilians as possible. On the other hand, Israel goes out of its way to do minimal damage in most cases.
Your argument about reciprocity begs this question: would you be comfortable with Israel indiscriminately launching Katyushas and Kassams into Gaza? If not, why not? That would be a reciprocal and proportionate response. The fact that more damage isn't done from Gaza relates largely to the fact that Hamas lacks access to high powered weapons but has nothing to do with their intent to do less damage.
Here's my real point. I could care less about Gaza. Why should Israel care about them when they continuously elect a government that makes war on Israel? Shouldn't the people be responsible for their democratic decisions? Describing Gazans as "defenseless" feeds into this idea that they are blameless for their state of affairs. They elected Hamas, they support a government that chooses to fight and not seek peace with Israel.
And lastly, why doesn't Egypt "leave Gaza alone" as you say? Why does Egypt impose restrictions on the flow of goods and supplies, which could readily break Israel's blockade? Moreover, why is there not much pressure brought to bear on Egypt to ease restrictions and why do you focus solely on Israel when Egypt is a necessary party to "blockade" Gaza.
Gazans have only one place to look for blame: right in the mirror.
Thank you so much Mr Jabotinsky for explaining everything to me. Now I understand why it is acceptable and indeed desirable in your opinion, for a nation of eight million with one if the most powerful arsenals in the world to constantly attack a nation of one and a half million civilians, over a million of whom are refugees, 56% children, using weaponry which includes white phosphor, cancer causing DIME, and flechettes. Now I understand why they need to be blockaded and deprived of sufficient food, water, medical supplies, sewerage, education etc. Phew! Looks as if Israel has had a narrow escape there, so fortunate they are such capable mind readers. If they run out of sitting targets in Gaza they can move on to Iran, since they appear to have read their minds with equal success!
Let me ask you this: is it not the case that Gaza's government launches hostile attacks into Israel? If you can acknowledge this basic fact, let me ask you this, how do you think it is appropriate for Israel to respond? I am guessing you are the kind of person who thinks the Jews should just leave, but assuming the continued existence of some sort of Israeli state, what kind of response would you think is acceptable? Doesn't a country have some right to respond to rocket attacks?
And thank you for understanding that Gazans are the cause of their own demise, that they have nobody to blame but themselves for their current predicament and state of affairs. It's certainly not an ideal situation, but when you elect a government that wants to make war, you must suffer the consequences.
Gazans are LUCKY that their neighbors are the Israels. If their neighbors were Indonesia, Morocco, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Syria, they would have been slaughtered by the thousands and they would not be receiving electricity and supplies. Minority groups have it must worse in Islamic countries than they do dealing with Israel.
Nationalist movements like POLISARIO, like the Kurds, like the Chechens, like the Tibetans, like the East Timorese, like the Tamils, all faced far worse crackdowns than Gaza faces. Moreover, the Palestinians have proven themselves to be a consistently destabilizing force, reviled in the region by their MUSLIM brothers in Jordan and Lebanon for their violent nationalistic tendencies. While it's easy and lazy to blame Israel for all the Palestinians' problems, never forget that Egypt and Jordan stymied the Palestinian nationalist cause and conquered "their lands" back in 1948.
I certainly do not think it is appropriate for Israel to respond by using their enormous firepower to sustain such overkill as they do on Gaza. It is equally inapropriate for them to continue to occupy and appropriate Palestinian lands in the way that they are in the rest of the occupied territories. It is unforgivable to steal lands, water and properties, turning the occupants into refugees or homeless and then to class them as terrorists when they attemp to fight back against occupation. How is it that in the 2nd world war such supporters were "the resistance", in this war they are "terrorists"? It is also totally inapropriate to allow Israeli settlers to constantly attack and destroy Palestinian owned lands and properties without any fear of consequences. The occupation of these lands MIGHT be semi acceptable were the Israel Govt to abide by the internationally recognised standards and laws governing such occupation, but they seem unable to even go so far as to acknowledge basic human rights.
If you would like like me to apportion some blame for this situation let's bring Britain and America into the picture. Britain should have taken no part in imposing Israel on the Palestinian people, but Israel for sure would not be able to maintain their war crimes and apartheid treatment without the constant meddling of American politicians.
You may feel that is is acceptable to fund the use of such weapons as white phosphor, DIME and flechettes, which are illegal, to be used on a population of civilians, 50% of whom are children. I however, do not and will not ever accept that this sort of behaviour by ANY nation is acceptable. Therefore sir, you and I must agree to differ and God help the rest of us in a world where the most powerful nations have no feelings of conscience or decency toward their less powerful neighbours.
If you are unable to reason why Gaza should need aid flotillas kindly spend a few moments reading this horrifying report of an interview with Dr Mads Gilbert regarding his work in the Gaza Strip.*HUMAN RIGHTS
"Every third child in Gaza stunted by hunger": interview with renowned doctor Mads Gilbert
Sami Kishawi The Electronic Intifada Chicago 7 June 2012*
You keep saying what isn't appropriate, what isn't this and what isn't that. I asked you a simple question: what is an appropriate military response to indiscriminate rocket fire coming from Gaza and striking Israeli civilian population? What is the appropriate response when Hamas and Hezbollah fighters use civilians as human shields?
You realize that Israel uses EXTREME restraint and could easily wipe out tens of thousands of Gazans per attack is it chose to.
Now let's get your more ignorant points. Stealing land...whose land? What nation's land are they stealing? There is no land as Palestine, Israel won those territories as a result of declared wars (Jordan declared was on Israel in 1967). Now the classic refugee argument. The reason that the Arabs are refugees is quite simple: they refuse to acknowledge the existence of any Jewish state within any borders. They were offered 98% of the West Bank and all of Gaza by Ehud Barak in 1999 and turned it down. They responded to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza by launching rockets and kidnapping soldiers. You blame Israel for this but neglect the fact that Lebanon, Jordan and Syria keep "Palestinians" in refugee camps because it is in their interest to ensure that those people never integrate so that the "refugee problem" is never solved. The idea of the right of return is so laughable precisely because it utterly unprecedented for a country which lost a war of aggression. Palestine attacked Israel in 1948, lost, and now wants the benefit as though it won that conflict. It's really quite silly, there has been no right of return in India/Pakistan, in Greece/Turkey or in any other such conflict, so why should it apply here?
As for the UK and America, obviously they played a role, but their actions shaped the entire Middle East. Saudi Arabia, by your logic, is illegitimate because the British betrayed the Sharif of Mecca and backed Ibn Saud during the 1920s. Jordan is equally illegitimate as the Hashemite kings are descendants of the Sharif of Mecca, not local Arab leaders (like the al-Husseinis or Nashashibis of Jerusalem). Syria and Lebanon too were created as a result of the French Mandate. And despite all that, the British turned on the Jews quite quickly and by the 1930s banned Jewish immigration and backed the Arabs, who were utterly unwilling to compromise. The Jews won for themselves, despite the British and the Arabs.
And of course, you speak as though were it not for the British, Palestinian nationalism was an inevitable or otherwise existent idea. Where was Palestinian nationalism during the Ottoman era? Didn't the Ottomans have MORE to do with stifling Arab nationalism for 400 years after defeating the Mamluks and taking over as Guardians of the Holy Places. Why do you not blame Ottoman Turkey for neglecting the Holy Land and for stifling Arab control in the region?
I also love that Israel is the all powerful nation. You speak as though Israel is a behemoth, imposing its will and crushing all in its path. Israel is a tiny nation surrounded by enemies, enemies who are driven by fanatical hatred of Jews at the most fundamental level. Jews do not hate Arabs, they were driven to their behavior by Arab treachery and violence. Until you realize that, you will never truly understand the conflict.
Good afternoon! I hope you are well. You ask what I think would be an appropriate response, citing the indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza. Probably the furthest I could go on that one would be "an eye for an eye", but since, in most cases analysis has shown that Israel is the prime mover of aggression and certainly the most prolific and lethal party in the Gaza/Israel missile stakes such a principle could never be reversed in order to 'even up the numbers' so to speak. Though I support Gaza I would not wish to see more Israeli deaths. The number of deaths caused by the indiscriminate rocket firings is 18 in 10 yrs I believe, by the Israelis own count, so I think this is an emotive rather than factual remark.
To address the matter of "extreme restraint" I would say that the ability to wipe out hundreds of thousands of lives does not justify the action of having killed tens of thousands. I find it a strange proposition that the use of weapons which fall under the description of war crimes shows restraint!
As far as the right of return is concerned, do those who left Palestine voluntarily have the right to return? I should think they must, since they were the native population at that time. Those who were forced to leave certainly must.
As far as stealing land is concerned. You dismiss very lightly the fact that Israeli settlers are even as I write, destroying Arab palestinian crops and lands and appropriating and poisoning wells. You surely cannot think that this is acceptable? Saying there is no Palestine is like saying there was no Indian America.
Your remark about little Israel trying to defend itself from all the Arab countries around it really is strange, because at the same time you are decrying even smaller Gaza for trying to defend itself against Israel, and not only being constantly bombarded, but blockaded to boot. When people are on the verge of malnutrition, when unemployment is at 40%, when basic medical supplies are unavailable, when drinking water is unfit, when the ocean which once supplied a large part of your diet is grossly polluted, when 50% of children have intestinal parasites, when 30% of children have stunted development, THIS is why they need aid flotillas!!
Surely, in the land of plenty which we are led to believe is America, there is some small spark of humanity which would accept that these people are in dire need of help?
Here's the simple fact: when Israel withdrew from Gaza, it was not with the intention of blockading it. From 2004 to the end of 2006, there was no blockade. The blockade started because and only because Hamas and its associates began launching rockets in to Israel. When Hamas stops, Israel stops. If Hamas recognized Israel's right to exist and renounced its desire to slaughter Jews wholesale, then there could be some discussion. Until that happens, why would Israel risk its own citizens' lives by allowing the free flow of goods into Gaza that will be used against Israel's civilians?
Your point that the rockets from Gaza cause fewer deaths is irrelevant. The INTENT of the rockets is to cause maximum death, the fact that Iron Dome can shoot them down does not make the actions of Gaza's militants any less violent and heinous.
Let me ask you a hypothetical, let's assume that the blockade was lifted and Gaza again (like in 2004 and 2005) initiated armed conflict against Israel. What would Israel be allowed to do? Nothing? Blockade them again? What if the weapons used are not Kassams but more advanced and more dangerous?
As for the right of return, Arabs already have a state in the former British Mandate, called Jordan. It's majority Palestinian, and all Palestinians should move there to realize their nationalist aspirations. The establishment of that state must negate the rights of Arabs to "return" much in the same way that the establishment of Indian and Pakistan negated the rights of return of Hindus and Muslims after the 1947-48 population exchanges. Arabs want it both ways, they want both their own state AND Israel. It can't be both ways, the right of return as described has never been imposed in all of human history.
Again, you use the word "Palestinian crops"? By what virtue are they "Palestinian?" That nation has never existed at any point, not during the Mamluk, not the Ottoman and not the British era. "Palestinian" nationalism arose from a power grab by the al-Husseini family, who were opposed to Hashemite power in Jordan and wanted their own state and was exploited by the Arab powers after their failure in the Six Day War.
It's funny that you complain about Jews in "Palestine" even though it is well known that the proposals for a Palestinian state all consist of the idea that Jews would be expressly forbidden from living there. I would agree to the removal of Jews from the West Bank on one condition: all Muslim Arabs leaving Israel. If Arabs want a state free of Jews, then Jews should have the right to a state free of Muslim Arabs. Reciprocity, right? In fact, the absence of Jews isn't even enough to satisfy the Arabs, as there isn't a SINGLE Jew living in Gaza, but the Arabs in Gaza still started a war against the Jews.
Again, yes Gaza is not a great place to live, but if the leadership of Gaza really cared about its people, it would accept Israel as a Jewish state, renounce violence, and the blockade would be gone. Easy as that.
Mr Jabotinsky,when you resort to a series of untruths and ludicrous statements while attempting to support your cause, that cause loses some of its legitimacy because of you. What began as a thought provoking discussion has deteriorated into silliness and a logic based on your beliefs, father than on facts.
I know that it must be hard for you to hear things that oppose the dominant victimization narrative spewed by the liberal and Islamic press. I know it's hard for Palestinians to accept any responsibility for their situation, but quite honestly, until they do, nothing will change. Israel will not and should not be asked endanger its people and give up their state.
Palestinians have have multiple chances to have a state and have rejected them all. If you can't accept that this is the case, then there's no need for further conversation. There are basic facts here. Israel has always been willing to accept some Arab state, while the Arabs have never been willing to accept any Jewish state. There's no spin, no opinion, that is pure fact. When you get a single Palestinian leader to say "yes, we accept a Jewish state," then peace will be forthcoming.
Israel makes concession after consession, they fund and empower the PLO, they give up land and withdraw Jews from their homes. Why don't the Arabs ever make any tangible concessions for peace? Why does Israel have to give up land while the Arabs can just make promises?
You are blinded by your need to keep Palestinians as victims, a people who cannot empower themselves and who need someone else's help. Palestinians have worn out their welcome everywhere they have lived, in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Kuwait, because of their unwillingness to compromise and their propensity to start violent uprisings against other countries. If Jordan, Lebanon and Kuwait don't tolerate this behavior, why should Israel?
You are right, I cannot see Palestine as anything other than a victim. However, the difference between you and I is that I refuse to lie in order to defend my belief, where you clearly do not.
What is my lie? The Arabs could have had a state in 1947, in 1999 and many other times. They said no, they don't want a state unless it means destroying Israel. Where is the lie in this?
Until you realize that the Palestinians have been hurt mostly by their own leaders and by their supposed Arab brothers, you will never truly understand the conflict.
Post a Comment