Leading article: Israel must listen to the world (pro-Israel case for lifting Gaza blockade)

[IndianaGreen]

Leading article: Israel must listen to the world

Sunday, 6 June 2010

Allow us to do something difficult and necessary: to set out the pro-Israeli case for lifting the blockade of Gaza. Condemnation of the Israeli Defence Force's killing of nine people on the Mavi Marmara on Monday is justified and important, but it is hardly unusual.

The operation was, at best, badly botched and a breach of international law. But the argument that ought to matter is that it was counterproductive and not in Israel's interest. As Professor Ilan Pappé depressingly but accurately writes on page 39, the "Israeli official and public mindset" is the main barrier to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the Holy Land.

The perception of Gaza in Israel could not be more starkly at odds with that of the rest of the world. The reporting of the storming of the flotilla could not have been more different in Israel from anywhere else in the world. Public opinion in Israel sees Gaza, ruled by Hamas, as a threat, and the actions of the Israeli Defence Force in boarding ships as self-defence. These attitudes are not delusions. Hamas is formally sworn to the destruction of the state of Israel, while Gaza has been the source of indiscriminate rocket attacks, which have diminished since the Israeli military re-invasion of Gaza in December 2008. Nor is Israeli public opinion closed to the possibility of negotiation. Opinion polls – depending on the phrasing of the question – consistently report support for negotiations with Hamas.

And, if Israeli public opinion is an obstacle to peace, so is Palestinian opinion. The reason that Hamas cannot be ignored, wished away or isolated, is that it won elections in Palestine in 2006, and continues to enjoy the support of the population, at least in the Gaza Strip.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-israel-must-listen-to-the-world-1992472.html

[Recursion]

1. All cases for lifting the blockade are "pro-Israel"

I want it lifted because I would like Israel to continue to exist.

[shira]

2. What's not considered is that lifting the blockade empowers Hamas

Just as the Lebanon 2000 pullout and 2005 Gaza pullout allowed Hamas and Hezbollah to claim "victory" and take the fight against Israel up to the next level, so will lifting the blockade result in the same thing.

Hamas and Hezbollah see lifting the blockade as a sign of weakness.

Why is this never considered by armchair "experts" on the mideast, and then accounted for in their analysis? :shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

3. While you support Israel's policies in Gaza, poor Gilad Shalit rots in Hamas captivity

How is Israel's attack on the freedom flotilla, or its invasion of Gaza, helped in anyway to bring us closer to the release of Gilad Shalit?

[shira]

5. An empowered Iranian armed warmongering theocracy imposing sharia law in Gaza....

....does not further the cause of peace and human rights for the I/P conflict.

So why do you prefer that?

[IndianaGreen]

6. while the religious kooks you support impose their own version of sharia law in Israel proper

What's this "white man's burden" that you are spouting now as a pretext for the Occupation?

[shira]

8. You need help.

[IndianaGreen]

13. You are the one that fails to realize that the policies you support are damaging Israel itself

Continuing the Occupation undermines Israel and the basic tenets of Judaism. What passes for Zionism today is a heresy that puts land above God. The Zionism of my parents was a simple one: Jews should live in peace in the land of our ancestors. The Zionism of today is: Grab as much land as possible, destroy Palestinians olive groves, take Palestinian water sources, take, take, take!

[shira]

15. Finally, a somewhat reasonable post from you - deserving of a response.

If ending the occupation truly meant peace, I'd advocate bringing all settlers into pre-1967 borders and ending it immediately.

Unfortunately, that would be viewed by the nasty powers that be as a giant sign of weakness and more war would break out.

Israel doesn't have choices between good and bad, but rather between bad and much worse.

[IndianaGreen]

16. It is far worse than that: no Israeli government can survive if it tries to remove the settlers.

Israel has created a de facto 1-state solution. Civil war will ensue if there is any attempt to remove the settlers from Occupied Judea and Samaria. The flip side is that Gazans will form their own state separate from the Palestinian state on the West Bank.

Our failure to do the right thing years ago have set up an impossible situation in which a 1-state solution is the only solution available. The issue now is the nature of that 1-state solution.

If you can produce a 2-state solution that doesn't result in a civil war, you are more than welcome to try it!

The civil war in Lebanon should caution anyone in here against wishing for a civil war, either on the Israeli side or the Palestinian side.

No one wins in a civil war!

[shira]

17. If the Gaza pullout had worked, then the settlers from the WB could have been removed

The best that can be hoped for at this point is all settlers from outside the Jerusalem area being removed.

Even then, I don't see real peace happening between the 2 sides.

[IndianaGreen]

18. There are two kinds of settlers in Judea and Samaria

We have the ones that moved there out of economic necessity, not to mention the generous aid they get from the government, and then we have the ones that moved there out of some Messianic vision that the land was given to them by God itself. The former will gladly move to pre-1967 Israel if they are assured of peace, the latter will never leave.

[shira]

19. Right, it's about a 2:1 ratio of economic settlers to religious nutjob settlers.

If Gaza and Lebanon worked, I'm certain the vast majority of Israelis would have seen to it that the Messianic settlers would either need to be removed forcefully or left to fend for themselves.

[IndianaGreen]

20. I don't want to see the IDF shedding Jewish blood anymore than you do!

It is folly to think that our technology and wits can solve every problem that comes our way. We have seen that misguided view put to the test in the Gulf of Mexico, and the same applies here.

[Recursion]

4. Maybe because Hamas is much stronger than it was 3 years ago?

The blockade has guaranteed its rule for the next several years. Much like the divestment movement would strengthen Netanyahu if it ever picked up steam. People rally around leaders they perceive as sticking up for them against unreasonable enemies. The Gazan thinks, "I never fired a rocket, why should I go hungry and live in a tent?" The Israeli thinks, "I'm minding my own business, why are college students in Europe making me lay off workers?"

The fact that both of them are from populations that elected governments that consider their political vision for the region more important than civilian lives is pretty weak sauce when you're the one facing economic sanctions. *shrug*

[shira]

7. Do you seriously believe the cause of peace and human rights for all concerned is furthered....

...by arming Hamas to the teeth (via Iran) and making them even more intransigent than they already are?

Do you think the situation for Gazans will be better as a result? Seems worse, as Gazans will have to resign themselves to living in hell under Hamas for a very long time.

The point being, let's not pretend things will get "better" for Gazans once the blockade is lifted. It won't get better, it will get worse. All it will do is lighten a little pressure against Israel from the International community and that's it. It guarantees the number of casualties in the next OCL will be exponentially higher.

[Recursion]

10. I believe a better-armed Hamas might make Israel think twice about another OCL

And it might force Israel to negotiate with them. So, yes. In general, I believe enforced disarmament is not a path to peace.

[shira]

11. Wow.

[Recursion]

12. Then again, I'm also against gun control in the US

So take my view with a grain of salt; I'm pretty far off the DU mainstream on the issue of armament.

[parkia00]

9. Is the blockade working?

Last I checked, Hamas is still heavily armed by getting supplies through smuggling tunnels. The only real effect of the blockade is to make things that are bulky and hard to smuggle like cement in short supply. If the blockade has limited effect, should Israel continue to pursue a failed policy? Should Israel continue to prop up the failed policy simply because it does not want to admit to the world that it failed and thus look "weak".

TO me a person that stops doing something because it fails and find other course of action and hopes for a better result is not weak. Such a person to me shows intelligence rather than stubborn insistence on wacking their head at the same rock hoping that the 76th time they hit the rock there will hopefully be a different result compared to the 75th time they hit the rock.

I still have yet to get an answer from the supporters of the blockade how items like coriander, cumin, potato chips, A4 size paper and chirping little yellow chicks are a threat to Israel's security. If Israel insist on having the blockade, they really should start to modify the list and really get rid of some of the items on it that make no sense. I think that would really help Israel to stop looking so insanely ridiculous in the eyes of the world community. I would really have no problem with a proper blockade against Gaza on items that are nefarious in nature. And I'm sure I am not alone.

[shira]

14. Against bringing in bigger and badder Iranian missles with longer range, yes.

I'm with you on the coriander, cumin, etc.

Looks like we agree more than we differ.

[hayu_lol]

21. Israel and the Arab Nations sat down to work out their...

many differences. After a long period of negotiations and compromises, the Arab Nations got 95% of their demands met. They then got up from the table and left the meeting. In any negotiation, 95% would be an unheard of quantity.

Suppose the UN demanded that Israel and HAMAS sit down and negotiate(moderated)a new truce or whatever you want to call it and make it binding. Hostilities would have to end on both sides...no wiggle room on this for either party. A neutral inspection force would be set up to see that the peace is kept, to report directly to UN headquarters(local)any possible infraction of the agreement.

Anyone have any ideas on how to get this in motion? What teeth should the agreement have in it.