RSS Feed MenuDavid Horovitz, from the Jerusalem Post, slammed the Israeli government for failing to quickly release videos from the Mavi Marmara incident which could have established that the IDF commandos acted in self-defense. But is Horovitz’s criticism fair?
His reasoning, the same as many other commentators, is that bad Israeli PR explains a large part of Israel’s diplomatic problems. Set up a good PR department, feed reporters and diplomats with the correct info and Israel will no longer be isolated each time things get out of hand with its enemies.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence for that. It took a few hours, not days, for the videos showing members of the Sayeret 13 getting clubbed, stabbed or thrown overboard to get on YouTube.
When the Israeli ambassador to the EU, Ran Curiel, showed that video to members of the European Parliament’s foreign committee, many of them considered that a “provocation” and publicly doubted the authenticity of the documents.
Actually, the videos are now discussed by the French media, and so are the consequences of the blockade in Gaza, in a relatively nuanced way. The links between the IHH and Muslim terror groups have been exposed too. Netanyahu’s speech has been reported without any notable distortion by the mainstream media. Israel is actually listened to — albeit with skepticism — but its views are not entirely being ignored. So where is the problem?
The problem is that world leaders and politicians do not seem to take any of that into account. As I argued in my previous post, what is surprising is that French and most European politicians have unanimously condemned Israel without much nuance (except for the obligatory professions of friendship with “the Israeli people”), and there is no evidence that a better access to the exculpatory evidence would have changed their attitude in any way.
But it is one thing to admit that there is anti-Israel prejudice, it is quite another to explain it. Anti-Semitism is a tempting explanation. However, while this explanation is probably true for some people, it’s hard to believe that such a large proportion of European politicians and journalists hate Jews. If that was so, open anti-Semitism would probably be a bit more frequent.
So why then do European politicians fall instantly into their Israel-bashing mode on every occasion, when they could at least abstain from commenting the situation until the facts are revealed. European leaders apply this cautious approach when commenting on most other international issues, including more or less comparable ones (for example, the recent North Korean torpedo attack which sank a South Korean naval vessel) or much more dramatic ones (think of the violence that occurs every day in Congo or Sudan).
Maybe some kind of explanation can be found over in Turkey. According to this AP/Jerusalem Post article, representatives for the Turkish Jewish community had to make strong anti-Israeli statements before Turkish PM Erdogan spoke publicly in their favor, sparing them from the “spontaneous” retribution that might have occurred otherwise. That puts them in a position similar to Iranian Jews, who are officially represented in the majlis by one MP who regularly makes anti-Israel statements.
European politicians are not Turkish nor Iranian Jews, but they have noticed that Muslim leaders and populations, both inside and outside their national territories, want them to condemn Israel. The oumma is a 1.5 billion strong community, with whom the West entertains a complicated relationship. Most Westerners do not speak any language spoken in Muslim countries and don’t know much about their history and culture. What most European leaders have noticed though is that any support for or sympathy with Israel will usually be met with overblown outrage from the Muslim world.
In 1997, Prime Minister Lionel Jospin hinted during a speech at Bir-Zeit University, in the Palestinian territories, that Hezbollah was a terrorist movement. That resulted in his prompt evacuation while his car was being stoned by students, and then a few days of rage against France in various Muslim countries. Muslim anger can be triggered by many different unpredictable signals, be it a cartoonist’s caricatures, something done (or not) by U.S. forces in Iraq, a speech from the Pope and on and on. Israeli actions, whether in self-defense or not, will likely have the same effect.
9/11 aggravated this state of tension. Many European leaders understood that the relationship with the Muslim world could be more hostile and violent than they thought. They responded by placing a priority on keeping quiet and avoiding any hint of “controversy”. But how does one keep things quiet with the Muslim world while also adopting a strong stand against the threat of Islamic terrorism? Simple: make strong distinctions.
Western politicians have generally tried to underline the difference that existed between al-Qaeda’s terrorism and the rest of the Muslim world. President Bush and many others have made speeches about the right interpretation of Islam. The French have insisted that terrorism was a simple law-enforcement issue and had nothing to do with Islam in general. Everything has been done in order not to inflame the “Arab street” (the real one, not the Middle East and North African department in the French foreign ministry). And the best way to keep the “Arab street” quiet has been by continually and reflexively trashing Israel.
By bashing Israel, a politician sends the message that he disagrees with the Israeli methods, signaling that he will not allow the law enforcement forces of his own country to act in the same fashion. When a European politician caricatures Israel’s security and diplomatic policies, he implicitly makes the point that he, on the other hand, would be willing to negotiate and make concessions in a similar situation.
By focusing their attention on Israel, Europe’s leaders can escape having to acknowledge that their own countries actually face problems not unlike those faced by Israel. But the Europe’s political class also knows that making those comparisons would be depicted as extreme, and not to mention, politically unwise. The best way to take a public stance against al-Qaeda while acting friendly to the Muslim world is to falsely caricature Israeli policies as the main “root cause” of terrorism.
This explains why European politicians do not want to take into account the exact circumstances of events such as the Marmara incident. That would blur their message and complicate their relations with the Muslim world. And so Israel remains “isolated” — mainly because the people who declared her isolated are the ones who continue to isolate her.
But, the gap between what is actually happening in the Middle East and the political debates about it in Europe grows wider each day. The events in the Middle East provide fodder for internal political debates, with politicians and intellectuals carefully positioning themselves on the subject and making long speeches without having the slightest notion about realities. Ignorance has never kept anyone from having a point of view.
Finally, that interpretation also explains why virulent speeches usually do not translate into any kind of action on the part of European countries. Israel continued to produce ammunition for the French assault rifle FAMAS while the French government was condemning it. Israel has just joined the OECD without any fuss from Europe. German-made submarines are quietly carrying Israeli nuclear warheads near the Iranian coast — or so it seems.
There is a high level of schizophrenia facilitated by the bureaucratic processes at work, but it seems that when it comes to making the important decisions, European governments have usually refrained from doing anything stupid, so far.
jakester // Jun 4, 2010 at 2:56 pm
I think it is telling that some Pali woman brought her six year old son along on what anyone could have told them was a dangerous trip. They deliberately provoked the Israelis and have no scruple about using useful idiots as pawns to create new “martyrs”.
Meanwhile a major war threatens Korea based on an unprovoked sinking of a S Korean destroyer with 50 dead sailors, but since Israel or those poor Arab victims aren’t involved no one cares.
Ruminant // Jun 4, 2010 at 3:00 pm
JimBob, I read Max Blumenthal’s blog post, and while I think he is right that Israel did not “bungle” the raid, I think the rest of his analysis of the incident is wrong. It seems like he is trying to equate “planning for the possibly of violence” with actually “wanting violence”. For example, he cites the following description of the IDF’s plans to intercept the flotilla, which was given to an Israeli newspaper three days before the incident:
“If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation will transfer to the stage of force. ‘We are afraid that there will be a terror attack by the boats,’ said a high ranking officer. ‘If terrorists have gotten on the boats or if there is an intention to use hot weapons against our forces, we will use full seriousness and caution. We want to avoid using force but as soon as there will be danger to the life of our forces we will be forced to use live fire as a last resort.”
So Israel feared that terrorists may have been part of the flotilla, and therefore made plans to capture the ships if they refused to turn back. Given that Israel’s blockade is legal as long as Israel actively enforces it, this plan to enforce the blockade seems reasonable. According to an interview with one of the IDF soldiers involved, Israel’s fear about terrorists may have been correct: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445
Blumenthal also claims that Israel could have “hijacked the aid ships without boarding them” (his words), but does not explain how such a thing is possible. I don’t think he knows, either, because the article he links to in explanation (about a previous attempt to breach the blockade) clearly states that ” Israeli troops boarded the Greek-flagged ship”. I think poor Max is just fishing for any excuse to fault Israel.
As for why the IDF didn’t simply disable the ship’s engine’s and tow it to Israel, here is there explanation: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897323,00.html. I would like to see someone from the IDF elaborate more on their reasoning, especially the idea that the boat was too far away from the shore to tow, and that “those on the boats would be left without water or food”. Since the boat was 70 miles away from Israel, towing it to Israel could have taken a long time (perhaps more than a day; I don’t know how fast they could have towed the boat). But it does seem ironic that a humanitarian decision led them to board the boat.
TerryF98 // Jun 4, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Ruminant.
Your screen name is well chosen, you seem to swallow any old propaganda as fact in the same way a cow might eat grass.
Ruminant // Jun 4, 2010 at 3:51 pm
TorontoCanada: International law allows a nation to intercept vessels in international waters if that vessel is bound for a territory in defiance of a legal blockage. Since Israel’s blockade of Gaza is legal, and the flotilla was clearly bound for Gaza, Israel had the right to intercept the flotilla in international waters.
Slide: While I normally agree with Andrew Sullivan, here I think he is as guilty of biased thought as he accusses Krauthammer of being (just in the opposite direction). Take this passage, where he mocks Krauthammer and others for suggesting that Israel’s existence is or has been threatened:
“A country with 150 nuclear warheads and the strongest military in its region, the victor in every conventional war it has always fought, is somehow also always fighting for its very existence.”
Isn’t it possible that Israel has nuclear weapons and the strongest military specifically because it is always fighting for its survival, and therefore might have been overrun years ago if it had not been able to defeat its neighbors?
Since you brought up your home-invasion analogy earlier, let me change it slightly. Imagine that a group of thugs break into your house with baseball bats and attempts to beat you to death. You manage to fight them off–barely–and resolve from then on to be prepared for such attacks. So you work out a lot and get a bigger, stronger bat to defend yourself with. Those thugs come back several more times, each time intent on killing you. Even if you can easily fight them off, would you not agree that you are still fighting for survival?
Hmm, my analogy might not be any more applicable. The point I’m trying to make is that you can’t say that a nation isn’t fighting for its existence just because it has done what it needs in order to keep existing.
Viraldoc23 // Jun 4, 2010 at 3:59 pm
what??…a bunch of well trained well armed soldiers could not handle a bunch of activists with billy sticks??….we put our own soldiers in jail for such incompetence.
TerryF98 // Jun 4, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Ruminant,
I did you a disservice, you have not swallowed propaganda you are actually making it up on the fly.
LFC // Jun 4, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Ruminant said… Israel was enforcing a legal blockade of Gaza by legally boarding a vessel after that vessel refused to heed legal Israeli warnings.
JacobNYC said the same thing before, but take a look at this link I posted before and tell me what you think. It seems like the fact that this is not a conflict between two states means that the attack of a vessel in international waters might very well be illegal. The points brought up were interesting, and appear to be from somebody with a scholarly interest in the subject and no political axe to grind.
And I agree with the comments above. This was just a dumb move by Israel. They need to end this continual sometimes hot / sometimes warm conflict. Pick their defensible borders, wall it in, give the Palestinians their blessing to start their own state, and completely withdraw. That means both militarily and economically. The Palestinians will be given, say, 5 years to figure out how to supply their people with water and electricity, and then their connection to Israel will be completely severed.
The world will scream for a bit but the dust will eventually settle. The Palestinians, along with their supporters, can then get busy with building a nation. Or they can decide to lob missiles into Israel and end up in a true two state war.
Ruminant // Jun 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm
TerryF98:
Thank you for your valuable contribution to this discussion. Your comment was much more valuable than, say, explaining why you think Israel committed the crime of “piracy” when it (in accordance with international law) boarded a vessel that was attempting to defy the blockade of Gaza and did not turn back when it was instructed to.
I try not to swallow anyone’s propaganda, although today’s PR agencies are so skilled (aka dishonest) that it probably happens occasionally. In the case of the flotilla, we have two extreme interpretations:
1. This incident was an unprovoked massacre by the IDF against innocent activists who only wanted to help the suffering people of Gaza.
2. This entire incident was orchestrated by the terror-activists, who deliberately provoked the IDF raid in order to ambush the commandos and create an international incident.
I doubt interpretation is correct. Rather, I think the real story is somewhere in the middle:
3. A bunch of activists, caught in a mob mentality of pro-Palestine, anti-Israeli propaganda, unwisely tried to fight back against the Israeli commandos who were legally boarding their vessel. The activists fought back too well, severely injuring several IDF soldiers. This prompted the soldiers to respond in self-defense with lethal force.
I think that is what really happened, give or take a few modifications:
* IDF soldiers, desiring not to die on that boat, might have been somewhat looser with the rules of engagement than they should have been
* the activists may have been mislead on the legality of the Gaza blockade and subsequently on Israel’s right to board their vessel when in international waters
* a few of the people on the vessel may not have been “peace activists”, but rather provocateurs who wanted to provoke violence
Ruminant // Jun 4, 2010 at 4:45 pm
LFC:
Thanks for posting that link. It will take me a little while to read through it, and the comments, plus it has me wanting to read up on our blockade of Cuba. I didn’t realize the US was in an “armed conflict” with Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis… unless we also blockaded Cuba during the Spanish-American war and that is what the article is referring to. Plus I should probably get off my computer and do some work today. But your link does seem to credibly challenge the notion that this blockade is legal. And if Israel’s blockade wasn’t legal than Israel really screwed this one up.
LFC // Jun 4, 2010 at 5:02 pm
But your link does seem to credibly challenge the notion that this blockade is legal.
I think I’ll go with “credibly question”, rather than “challenge”. Even the author admits that he’s not speaking with authority but is, rather, asking if his interpretation is solid. Still, it’s the single best fact-filled post I’ve seen on the topic.
train // Jun 4, 2010 at 5:49 pm
next time soldiers come into my house via helicopter – I guess that’s just self defense…WTF…
pnumi2 // Jun 4, 2010 at 6:07 pm
By the Israeli state’s self-serving logic, they have the right to attack any ship even those taking on humanitarian aid while still in their port of origin. The defenders of Israel’s latest gambit forget the fiasco that happened in Dubai a couple of months ago. Frum, Krauthammer et alia, think that that affair is over and done with and was not considered in Europe’s Gaza response.
ExtremeCentre.org » Europe to Israel: Don’t Annoy Us With the Facts: Blog Politique Francophone pour les Libertés Fondamentales et Contre Tous les Totalitarismes, qu'ils soient de Droite ou de Gauche // Jun 4, 2010 at 7:43 pm
[...] 4th, 2010 at 8:55 am | 37 Comments [...]
LauraNo // Jun 4, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Israel DOES have to worry about PR. I for one have been finding myself inclined to listen to the other side about the injustice they inflict on a defenseless people. Whom they have made defenseless, and jobless, and despairing. I don’t feel the same gut defense of Israel that the right wing does. They have ruined chances for sanctions against Iran at our expense. Yet we are so beholden to them for some unknown-to-me reason. It’s close to time to rethink our support of a rogue, right-wing batshit country that ruins our foreign policy goals.
onion // Jun 4, 2010 at 9:05 pm
I thought I heard shots fired by the commandoes before they boarded the ship. I think an act of terror is what the Israeli’s did. Israel seriously has no business in Palestine in the first place. I have researched their claim of their God giving them land that belonged to someone else. They stand by this story and I believe it is just a story. Anyone who has half a brain knows There is no God who gave them that land. If they talked to God they should be checked for schizophrenia or should be on medication to help them to reason properly.
Israeli siege of the land they occupy is totally illegal and deadly to the rest of the entire world. Any other point is as Tyson says ludicrous. There is no such thing as Jacob, Abram, Abraham, Lot, Mosses or any of the crap they state as their reason for occupying the land they have stolen and are murdering to hold onto. Doesn’t anyone believe in the truth anymore. I already know that answer to that question. The thing is they have a hidden agenda and everyone on the Planet is playing this deadly game with them and is complicit in their behavior by not loudly demanding that the incidents taking place are for a free people. Anyone who thinks Israel is for freedom and fake democracy which has been proven to be a scam is an idiot. When you willfully create your own demise and turn your back on the consequences you are nothing more than an idiot. Make all of the excuses you want but the writing is and always has been right in front of us all and on the wall in big red letters for all to see written in blood for thousands of years. This is why I believe we are all doomed to
pedro // Jun 4, 2010 at 9:42 pm
The best YouYube video about the situation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ66qEl-fqo
ottovbvs // Jun 5, 2010 at 10:57 am
…….at least there’s one realist……..and he’s the head of Israel’s foreign intelligence service
“The head of Israel’s foreign intelligence service warned parliament the next day that the country is “gradually turning from an asset of the United States to a burden.”
LordAtila // Jun 6, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Israel knew exactly what was in the vessels, but they strike them on purpose, is the same when you go to a pacifist, non violence strike, and the police start the fight beating up one of the persons. What you suppose to do let them kick your as, or even kill you beacuse you think diferent?
They knew(the have one of the best intelligence on the planet, they had a spy inside the vessels(i bet on that) that it was a food transport with no weapons or anything like it…(It was friendly vessel) They just wanted to show the fact that they do not care about other people life no matter if they are enemy or not, armed or not, peace or whatever. And they are willing to kill even his own partners if they have to…
too much bla, bla and is so simple…