Well at long last, after technical delays, reported diplomatic pressure and bureaucratic holdups, the Lebanese flotilla has left port! Ostensibly the three- boat armada set a course for Cyprus, but as everyone knows its real destination is Gaza. A lot of publicity was devoted to the passengers on one of the vessels. They are all women! I wonder if Herzbollah spiritual head Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has ascertained that the girly boat is properly chaperoned. The Iranians too have sent a two-ship flotilla to Gaza.
According to the Jerusalem Post the Lebanese flotilla consists of just two ships which are still in port and the Iranians have sent only one vessel.
How well will we handle the blockade busters this time? Ya'akov Katz Jane's Defence Weekly correspondent in Israel summed up the debate over the way the Turkish flotilla flagship Mavi Marmara was boarded. His analysis dealt with the military aspect of the operation, a topic that won't be examined by the Israeli appointed investigating committee. "Even within the military community there is a sense that the navy commandos were misused in the operation.” claims Katz. The navy commandos have a well earned reputation as one of the best IDF elite units. However their expertise has been tested mainly in covert operations behind enemy lines and not in crowd dispersion situations. Katz argues that the police SWAT (special weapons and tactics) unit which specialises in counter-terror operations, hostage rescues in urban environments and counter attacks, would have been better suited for taking over the Mavi Marmara.
Katz quoted a senior Israeli Navy source who said, “Apart from the navy commandos no other military or police force was capable of boarding a moving vessel at sea and commandeering it. The Israeli Navy looks at the bottom line and that is nine dead attackers and six ships prevented from breaking the blockade with no serious casualties on our side. For us, that is a success.”
Another success like that and we will be truly all out at sea.
Referring precisely to this myopic type of thinking Professor Zaki Shalom of the INSS (the Institute for National Security Studies) says, “An operational mishap, even if confined to a narrow tactical level, can sometimes have far reaching strategic implications. While presumably this is understood by the decision making echelon in Israel, it is less clear to what extent this has been internalised within the operational echelon.” Notwithstanding the grave consequences of the action Zaki Shalom believes there is a positive aspect of the affair. “First, the international community, led by the American administration, has granted almost full recognition to Israel's fundamental right to prevent the supply of weapons to Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The implication might be that Israel is entitled to impose a naval blockade on Gaza in order to prevent the smuggling of arms – although this understanding was accompanied by calls to significantly ease the land blockade and allow entry of more goods and commodities, barring specific materials that could strengthen Hamas's military strength and its ability to attack Israel. Furthermore, Israel was asked to agree to a move whereby the authority to inspect goods entering the Gaza Strip would be given to a third party, almost certainly a European country.
From Israel's viewpoint, this is a political achievement that should not be underestimated. True, inspection by a foreign entity, even a credible, respectable country would not be as tight and secure as Israeli inspection, and there would likely be quite a few instances of smuggling of arms into Gaza. This is a reality Israel will have to learn to live with. Yet even tight Israeli inspection cannot guarantee entirely against dangerous weapons infiltrating into Gaza, and thus the arrangement that is taking shape appears to be one that Israel can be satisfied with. “
The same navy commando unit (Shayetet 13) is due to engage all vessels en route to the Gaza Strip coast. I’ll hazard a guess and say that the commandeering of vessels in the two flotillas due here soon will be uneventful.
There has been some speculation concerning two key figures involved in the Mavi Marmara incident, namely the commander of the Israeli navy Vice Admiral Merom and the head of the MossadMeir Dagan.Some people say Merom will retire and Dagan will not be asked to continue after his tenure ends.
The Israeli cabinet's decision to ease the restrictions on goods entering the Gaza Strip was praised by the US administration, the Quartet and a number of governments. Nevertheless it didn't take the wind out of the sails of the various vessels bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza. What do the “Free Gaza”activists want? They will accept nothing less than open borders with no surveillance on goods and persons entering and leaving Gaza via land, sea or air.
We have never been able to understand why God’s chosen people was given a country without oil. Admittedly, we were promised a land flowing with milkand honey, however a gusher or two would have improved our morale. While Saudi Arabia is blessed with an ocean of oil below its sands Israel has managed to pump only a few barrels of oilfrom the Heletz fields before they dried up. What did our enemies do to deserve so much oil?
Well maybe the Almighty held back on oil but now recently discovered off shore gas reserves in the Mediterranean off Israel’s coastare beginning to restore our faith in divine intervention. The latest discovery, the Leviathan field has huge reserves and promises to make Israel an exporter of natural gas. After Israel surveyed, invested and drilled the off shore fields Lebanon complains that we are “occupiers” and claims that Israel will be drawing off gas from a field that might possibly extend to an area inside Lebanon’s economic maritime zone. The Lebanese complaints are not new. They arose last year as well when two smaller fields were discovered. A Hezbollah delegate in the Lebanese parliament warned Israel not to touch what he called “Lebanon's resources.” Instead of ignoring the Lebanese threats
Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau couldn’t resist the temptation to warn Hezbollah that Israel will fight for its gas fields.
The latest clashes between the PKKand the Turkish army hardly raised a ripple of interest in the international news media. Turkey is overly concerned about Gazawhile its troops hop across the border into Iraq to hunt Kurds.
According to Turkey’s twisted logic killing PKK militants is okay because they are terrorists, however Hamas and Hezbollah are freedom fighters BBC reporter Jonathan Head says Prime Minister Erdogan is trying to ward off accusations that his “soft policy” with the Kurdish minority is not paying off.
“In a country where every soldier's funeral whips up a frenzy of nationalist sentiment, Mr Erdogan's party is vulnerable to charges of selling out to terrorists, because of its efforts last year to promote a softer approach to the conflict.
The increasingly bold attacks by the PKK this year have effectively killed off that initiative, although it was already running out of steam.
But after 26 years and 40,000 deaths, few officials can be under any illusion that just throwing more military forces at the PKK along the Iraqi border can finish the movement off. “ Ironically the Turkish news media boasted that the Turkish forces fighting the PKK were aided byIsraeli made UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). Weapons sales nearly always include an end-user clause but no declaration of intent is required. Israel is concerned that weapons sold to Turkey over the years could be resold to Hezbollah and Hamas.
The latest Israeli spy satellite Ofeq 9 was launched on Tuesday from the Palmachim Air Force Base on Israel's Mediterranean coast. The new satellite is the sixth satellite in the Ofeq series, which began with the launching of the Ofeq 3 in 1995.
Ofeq 9 carries a new high-resolution camera payload developed by Elbit Systems EL-OP. The payload is believed to be the latest version of the 'Neptune' camera, developed by ELOP. Positioned at an altitude of 600 kilometres, Neptune's sensors record images monochromatic resolution of 0.5 metre. This new eye in the sky combined with the other five spy satellites gives Israel a round-the-clock surveillance capability of selective sites.
Eurosatory defence industry trade show held every two years in Paris. France is an event defence industries look forward to. As usual Israel was well represented at this year’s show, and so it should be. With export sales for 2010 expected to top $8 billion Israel is ranked the fourth largest weapons exporter in the world. The United States, Russia and France are the only countries who have sold more weapons and systems to foreign customers.
The star performer in the Israeli pavilion was the Merkava Mk4 main battle tank.
A few years ago MBTs were dubbed obsolete, cumbersome and relatively easy to disable. The Merkava’s improved armour and the innovative hard-kill active protection system renders it unstoppable and extremely formidable.
Today more and more battles are fought in urban environments once considered unsuitable for MBTs. The Merkava has performed well in such situations.
A number of other innovative weapons systems and accessories on display in the Israeli pavilion attracted many visitors.
I couldn’t find our neighbours listed in the exhibitors list at the Eurosatory Show.
I must admit that the Iranians are innovative, but many of their innovations like Syria’s indigenous missiles and rockets are offshoots of North Korean technology.
Someone at our breakfast table parliament reminded me of an unverified Syrian army innovation – the “Shabazan.” I don’t know if it exists or not. It might be just another urban legend. The name itself was coined decades ago by an anonymous Israeli reserve army soldier serving in a border outpost in the Golan Heights. The observant soldier noticed a strange caravan vehicle parked near a Syrian outpost across the border. When he saw women leaving and entering the caravan followed by Syrian soldiers he came to an overwhelming conclusion. He had witnessed a service provided by the Syrian army for its front line troops, namely, a Shabazan the Hebrew acronym for a mobile bordello. I have never seen a Shabazan and all the people I know who claim itexistsconfess that they have never seen one but know people who have.
Next weekI will be in Norway. The next letter will be posted after the 12th of July.
I was just looking at an old video tape. It was my first tentative attempt to record our overseas travel. My old Sony analogue video camera was a step up from still photography. At the time the cumbersome camera served its purpose, but now two cameras on in a digital era just before the next technological breakthrough, the results I achieved then appear clumsy and primitive. Just the same, for all its many imperfections the film possesses a unique beginners charm and I am thankful to have video filmed that first visit to Turkey.
I replayed the old tape in order to put me in the right frame of mind to contemplate the Turkish enigma. Those five days in Istanbul in 1994 were our first exposure to a Muslim majority culture. Admittedly we had a two-day encounter in Teheran in 1974, but that doesn’t count.Ruhollah MoosaviKhomeini was still in exile and Israelis were still welcome in Iran.
I think it was the view of the Bosphorus from the top of the Galata tower that imbued the full impact of our stay in an Islamic society. Istanbul’s horizon just before sunset with the city’s many minarets silhouetted against the sky was both beautiful and oppressive. A panorama of eleven million Muslimsand more than 2,600 active mosques
A few years later when we visited Antalya I discussed the interests Israel and Turkey share with a retired teacher who was supplementing his meagre pension by working as a tour guide. I mentioned this conversation in a letter I wrote a few months ago. “We Turks like Israelis,” stated the teacher. I wasn’t sure if he was trying to patronise me or really thought we had a lot in common. “What’s to like? We are brash, ill-mannered, we trash and vandalise your hotels and tourist sites, why should you like us?” I asked him obviously exaggerating our negative attributes. “Well you spend a lot of money in Turkey and we have a common enemy – Syria.” He answered.
That was an eon ago and now everything has changed.
For Turkey, embracing Iran is a matter of building bridges, claims Sabrina Tavernisethe New York Times bureau chief in Istanbul. She too was looking out across the Bosphorus from the its north shore, that tiny European enclave, too tiny to gain Turkey acceptance in the EU.
Quoting Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ assessment that Turkey was “moving eastward,” a shift he attributed to the European Union’s tepid response to Turkey’s application to join it. Tavernise believes “That is a narrative that is gaining ground:Turkey, the East-West bridge, sided with the East because it had lost its way on its path to becoming more like the West.”
“But many here do not see it that way.” She claims, “Turkey is not lost, they say, but simply disagrees with the United States over how to approach the problems in the Middle East.”
Ms. Tavernise quotes local historian Halil Berktay “I would be appalled if Turkey cut itself off from the West and aligned with the Islamic world, but that’s not what’s happening. Turkey is saying, ‘You’ve been talking about building bridges. This is the way to build them.’ ”
Berktay was referring to the new alignment with Iran.
Tavernise quotes another source, a Turkish official who works closely with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan “For the United States, Iran is a rogue state intent on building a bomb and crazy enough to use it. Turkey agrees that Iran is trying to develop the technology that would let it quickly build a weapon if it chose, but says Iran’s leaders may be satisfied stopping at that. We believe that once we normalise relations with Iran, and it has relationships with other actors, it won’t go for the bomb,” he said.
“The prevailing sentiment in Washington is that the agreement is just another Iranian ploy and that Ankara has played into Tehran’s hands,” said Steven Cook, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.
An unnamed diplomatic observer quoted by Tavernise said, “The consensus in the US administration is that the Iranians really aren’t going to negotiate away their nuclear programme.”
Sabrina Tavernise added, ”Turkey says it fears a nuclear-armed Iran, because it would upset the balance of power between the two countries, but it also worries that the Obama administration’s focus on sanctions is reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s rush to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, some here say it will lead to war. “
Quoting an American expert on Turkey Tavernise said, “ that the regional rise of Turkey was not to be feared. It counters the influence of Iran in the Middle East, and as a NATO ally with a powerful economy, a vibrant democracy and relations with Israel, has something to teach the Muslim world, and it cannot play that role by being an American instrument. However, the Turks are finding that the vision that they have is very good on paper, but striking the balance of being a close American ally and popular on the Arab street is awfully difficult to achieve.”
Well the advantage of having good relations with Israel is no longer valid, nevertheless, Israeli observers claim that Iran is happy with the new Teheran-Ankara- Damascus axis, but suspects that Turkey might be jostling for a position of dominance in the region, a type of neo-Ottoman aspiration.
Bernhard Zand a journalist who writes for Der Spiegel says, “Erdogan has indeed turned Turkey around. He has embarrassed everyone who once treated him as a religious simpleton. He has forced Turkey's all-powerful military against a wall, demoralised the republican establishment and transformed his country on the Bosphorus, once known for its coups and crises, into an Anatolian tiger. While neighbouring Greece struggles with national bankruptcy, the Turkish economy is expected to grow by more than 5 percent this year.”
Zand adds a critical observation, “At the same time, the country is growing into a role that modern Turkey has never played: that of a loud and arrogant regional power that is triggering international uproar as it jettisons a fundamental principal of its foreign policy.
It is a historic change of course. ‘The Turks have always gone in only one direction,’ Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish republic, said, ‘toward the West.’ But now, after seven years under Erdogan, Turkey is shifting its direction toward the East.” With regard to the special relationship with Israel Zand comments, “It is an alliance of convenience and values that the secular elites of both countries have supported and that has been in place for almost 60 years.”
Referring specifically to Turkey’s new eastern affinityBernhard Zand says, “The turnaround is also reflected in the relationship with Iran, a country Ankara has eyed with suspicion since the 1979 Islamic revolution. A sign that has been posted at the Turkish-Iranian border since 1979 reads: ‘Turkey is a secular state.’ It is a statement of Turkey's opposition to the theocracy in neighbouring Iran.”
However when the Turkish ambassador raised his hand in the United Nations Security Council and voted against the package of sanctions with which Washington, London, Paris and Berlin -- and even Moscow and Beijing -- hope to stop Iran's controversial nuclear programme the change in Turkey’s orientation was clearly demonstrated.
Zand underscores the full significance of this strategic loss. “The West is shocked. A country that covered the southeastern flank of NATO for 60 years, and that stood by the side of the United States and Europe, with the second-largest army in the alliance -- from the Korean War to Afghanistan -- is suddenly a friend of the mullahs? The State Department in Washington calls it a ‘disappointment,’ while some in Israel, the United States and Germany are already predicting a new "axis of evil."
In an effort to pinpoint the beginning of the end regarding Turkey’s hopes for EU membership Zand says, “ Some time between Angela Merkel's assumption of office in 2005 and that of French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2007, Erdogan's enthusiasm waned. If there is one issue on which these two leaders agree, it is their opposition to full EU membership for Turkey.
Erdogan understands that he doesn't stand a chance in Europe for the time being, and he is instead redirecting his energy toward the East. It isn't a particularly masterful way of releasing political frustration, but neither is it entirely surprising.”
A lead article in The Christian Science Monitor suggests that the Iraq war acted as a catalyst for change. “It resulted in a significant decrease in US influence in Turkey's neighbourhood, further enabled Turkish leaders to think big in terms of their nation's foreign policy.”
Like many other observers the author of the article in the CSM singles Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu as the key figure shaping the country’sideological change.
“Mr. Davutoglu, has managed to convey Turkey's foreign policy with a simple message: ‘zero problems with neighbours.’ That means reaching out to Middle Eastern nations that Turkey has ignored for decades and carving out a niche as mediator of ancient and modern rivalries.” Well aiming for zero problems with its neighbours and interceding in local conflicts is commendable even if it is more like close-to-home foreign policy .
Tom Friedman wrote a letter from Istanbul to the New York Times adding a slightly different nuance: ”Turkey is movingaway from its balance point between East and West. This could have enormous implications. Turkey’s balancing role has been one of the most important, quiet, stabilizers in world politics. You only notice it when it is gone. Being in Istanbul convinces me that we could be on our way to losing it.” Friedman too blames the EU for rejecting Turkey.
” The E.U.’s rejection of Turkey, a hugely bad move, has been a key factor prompting Turkey to move closer to Iran and the Arab world.
But as Turkey started looking more South, it found a vacuum — no leadership in the Arab-Muslim world. Egypt is adrift. Saudi Arabia is asleep. Syria is too small. And Iraq is too fragile. Erdogan discovered that by taking a very hard line against Israel’s partial blockade of Hamas-led Gaza — and quietly supporting the Turkish-led flotilla to break that blockade, during which eight Turks were killed by Israel — Turkey could vastly increase its influence on the Arab street and in the Arab markets. “
According toa damage assessment of the current crisis in relations between Israel and Turkeythat appearedin Haaretz today Turkey may not return its ambassador to Tel Aviv. It’s quite likely that Ankarawill opt to downgrade the ties between Turkey and Israelto the 'charge d'affairs' level.
The assessment dealt mainly with loss of exports to Turkey.
“Some of the 16 scrapped projects include a $5 billion deal in which Ankara was to receive 1,000 Merkava Mark III tanks from Israel, a $50 million plan to upgrade Turkish M-60 tanks, and a $800 million agreement to buy two Israeli patrol aircrafts and an Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft.
Turkey has also abandoned a $632.5 million deal for 54 F-4 Phantom, and a $75 million programme for 48 F-5 fighter bombers.
Bilateral corporate deals in the private sector would continue as usual unless the companies involved decided to cancel contracts.”
I’m tempted to speculate what would have happened if Israel hadn’t embarked on “Operation Cast Lead” and had waved the Free Gaza flotilla through to dock in Gaza without interference. I’m sure Prime Minister Erdogan would have faulted us for something else, probably our treatment of the Palestinians.
Once again we are in a no win situation.
Well we won’t be holidaying in Marmaris, Antalyaor Istanbul this year. Instead we will be going to Norway. What the view from Geirangeracross the fjord lacks in Levantine charm it makes up for in breathtaking beauty.
Newcomers to colloquial Hebrew are puzzled by the expression "Kill a Turk and rest."
This firmly ingrained figure of speech has nothing to do with Israelis killing Turks.
Like many other colloquialisms in our language it was imported generations ago by Yiddish speaking Jews.
I suppose it could be called a pre-computer age hyperlink to a Jewish joke. For the sake of brevity I'm quoting the abridged version:
In Czarist Russia, to be exact during the war that broke out between Russia and Turkey in 1877, a Jewish boy is drafted to fight in the army.
His tearful mother takes leave of him at the railway station and implores him: “Don’t overexert yourself! Kill a Turk and rest. Kill another Turk and rest again…” But mother!” the boy interrupts her. “What if the Turk kills me while I'm resting?” “Kills you?!” the mother exclaims in sheer disbelief. “But why should he kill you? What have you done to him?”
Today as then the Yiddishe Mamma's advice has been condensed to "Kill a Turk and rest."Which simply means- Don't rush, take it easy.
Well I'm not taking her advice because this is my last chance to write about the Gaza flotilla fiasco before the opening of the Mondial, the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa on Friday. Football mania will inundate the news media relegating every non-soccer story to the least read, heard and viewed status. Therefore I want to mention the "Flotilla Embroilment" again mainly because it marks a turning point in regional relations.
On Saturday the straggler in the Gaza flotilla, the long awaited Rachel Corrie was brought to dock at the port of Ashdod. The quiet takeover of the ship was preceded by diplomatic contacts with both its passengers and organisers. On Friday, Israel and Ireland put together a deal that would allow an orderly transfer of the humanitarian equipment on board to the Gaza Strip, but the passengers rejected it. In light of this rejection, the forum of seven senior ministers in the Israeli cabinet decided to board the ship and bring it to Ashdod.Admittedly the boarding party was not greeted with rice and rose petals, but the reception was cordial and uneventful.
The much smaller Rachel Corrie and her small complement of crew and passengers differed in other respects compared to the Mavi Marmara,. Aboard the Rachel Corrie were mostly code-pink grandmas whereas the Mavi Marmara's passengers included an armed and ready-to-fight core of IHH hotheads.
All week long a battle has been waging between Israeli and Turkish ftv clipson YouTube, each side trying to prove its version of what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara.
For a closer look at the previous ship’s humanitarian aid cargo access the following clip via this hyperlink:
Of course someone will claim that the clip like other related images are falsified.
The Turks adamantly claim that the flotilla was loaded with humanitarian aid items only.
The Christian Science Monitor criticised the Turkish reaction and rhetoric, "Even considering the shock and sorrow over the tragic deaths of eight Turks and a Turkish-American aboard the Gaza-bound flotilla of Turkish vessels, the rhetorical response from Turkish officials has been over the top.
Turkey’s government leaders have called the Israeli raid on the flotilla a 'massacre,' likened it to 9/11, and branded it 'state terrorism'."
In response I'm tempted to raise the matter of the Armenian genocide denial but I doubt if we would benefit from reminding Mr. Erdogan of the 1.5 million Armenians the Turks gleefully murdered. Well that was ninety years and even if the nine Turks shot on the deck of the Mavi Marmara were certainly not white-frocked choir boys, the media was quick to make them blameless martyrs.
Thanks Roberta for the following link to Alan Jones’ popular Australian radio programme:
It’s disconcerting to see the repeated scenes of frenzied Turkish demonstrators and their incensed prime minister ranting and raging at Israel every day almost as frequently as he prostrates himself in the direction of Mecca.
Just the same the relations between Israel and Turkey involve a lot of money on both sides. But not only money, there are deep-rooted military interest at stake.
An editorial in The Economistwarning of Israel's growing isolation argues that this dependence is less mutual and more one-sided. "Israel needs Turkey more than Turkey needs it," …. "As for America, its dependence on Turkey for its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq means that it cannot afford to alienate Prime Minister Erdogan," then referring to the clash on the deck of the Mavi Marmara it states,.
"The impression received yet again by the watching world is that Israel resorts to violence too readily."My impression is that the watching world is only too ready to condemn Israel. It doesn't want to be confused by the facts. The navy commandos who landed on the deck were mercilessly beaten before they resorted to shooting in self-defence.
An example of presenting a "doctored" version of the incident was mentioned inHaaretz.
In addition to the video footage released by the IDF, Reuters bureau inIstanbulreleasedphotographs taken during the raid on the Turkish ship. A spokesman for the agency was hard put to explain "certain discrepancies”:
"The images in question were prepared for dissemination following a routine editorial practice which included cropping at the edges. When we realised that a dagger was inadvertently cropped from the images Reuters immediately moved to the original set as well.”
This is not the first time that Reuters has been criticised for images that appear to be biased against Israel. During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the news agency admiited that one of its picturesof destruction caused by Israel's bombing of Beirut had been altered with the aid of a computer graphics programme.
Political commentator Tom Gross said, "Everyone makes mistakes, including journalists, but every time Reuters says it makes a mistake, it does so to Israel’s detriment, and this looks suspiciously like a deliberate pattern."
Ironically, the father of Julius Reuter, the German Jew who founded Reuters, was a rabbi.
He must be turning in his grave!
There is a blanket condemnation of Israel regarding the illegal blockade and the illegal defence of that closure on the Gaza Strip.
Charles Krauthammerwrote a very neo-con forceful piece in TheWashington Post under the title "Those Troublesome Jews." It was good for the convinced firm supporters of Israel and maybe for wavering confused and undecided casual observers of the Middle East arena. If Netanyahu read it he was probably glad for Charles' unswerving support. Krauthammer makes a good case but falls short on the problematic justification of the Gaza blockade.
Even when he quotes Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who states, "The blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal."
Legal but not wise.
I confess my heart doesn't bleed for the people under siege in Gaza. Naturally I'm more sensitive to the suffering of the people living in Israel's Gaza periphery communities, some of them are my family and friends. Having said that I hasten to add and repeat what I said last week – the Gaza blockade is untenable. It doesn't photograph well, especially now and should be replaced a mechanism that keeps the arms out but allows essential supplies to enter the Gaza Strip.
I am indebted to Peter Frank who referred me to political scientist George Friedman's interesting nonpartisan analysis of Israel's predicament.
Actually Friedman in his article published in Stratfor doesn't call our situation a predicament.
He sums up as follows:"Israel’s actions have generated shifts in public opinion and diplomacy regionally and globally. The Israelis are calculating that these actions will not generate a long-term shift in the strategic posture of the Arab world. If they are wrong about this, recent actions will have been a significant strategic error. If they are right, then this is simply another passing incident. In the end, the profound divisions in the Arab world both protect Israel and make diplomatic solutions to its challenge almost impossible — you don’t need to fight forces that are so divided, but it is very difficult to negotiate comprehensively with a group that lacks anything approaching a unified voice."
Friedman began his overview of the ME conflict with a synopsis.
“The first generations of Israelis lived under the threat of conventional military defeat by neighboring countries. More recent generations still faced threats, but not this one. Israel is operating in an advantageous strategic context save for the arena of public opinion and diplomatic relations and the question of Iranian nuclear weapons .
All of these issues are significant, but none is as immediate a threat as the specter of a defeat in conventional warfare had been. Israel’s regional enemies are so profoundly divided among themselves and have such divergent relations with Israel that an effective coalition against Israel does not exist — and is unlikely to arise in the near future.
Given this, the probability of an effective, as opposed to rhetorical, shift in the behavior of powers outside the region is unlikely. At every level, Israel’s Arab neighbors are incapable of forming even a partial coalition against Israel. Israel is not forced to calibrate its actions with an eye toward regional consequences, explaining Israel’s willingness to accept broad international condemnation. “His damage assessment reads as follows
“Given this environment, it is extremely difficult to translate hostility to Israeli policies in Europe and other areas into meaningful levers against Israel. Under these circumstances, the Israelis see the consequences of actions that excite hostility toward Israel from the Arabs and the rest of the world as less dangerous than losing control of Gaza. The more independent Gaza becomes, the greater the threat it poses to Israel. The suppression of Gaza is much safer and is something Fatah ultimately supports, Egypt participates in, Jordan is relieved by and Syria is ultimately indifferent to.
Nations base their actions on risks and rewards. The configuration of the Palestinians and Arabs rewards Israeli assertiveness and provides few rewards for caution. The Israelis do not see global hostility toward Israel translating into a meaningful threat because the Arab reality cancels it out. Therefore, relieving pressure on Hamas makes no sense to the Israelis. Doing so would be as likely to alienate Fatah and Egypt as it would to satisfy the Swedes, for example. As Israel has less interest in the Swedes than in Egypt and Fatah, it proceeds as it has.
A single point sums up the story of Israel and the Gaza blockade-runners: Not one Egyptian aircraft threatened the Israeli naval vessels, nor did any Syrian warship approach the intercept point. The Israelis could be certain of complete command of the sea and air without challenge. And this underscores how the Arab countries no longer have a military force that can challenge the Israelis, nor the will nor interest to acquire one. Where Egyptian and Syrian forces posed a profound threat to Israeli forces in 1973, no such threat exists now. Israel has a completely free hand in the region militarily; it does not have to take into account military counteraction. The threat posed by intifada, suicide bombers, rockets from Lebanon and Gaza , and Hezbollah fighters is real, but it does not threaten the survival of Israel the way the threat from Egypt and Syria once did (and the Israelis see actions like the Gaza blockade as actually reducing the threat of intifada, suicide bombers and rockets). Non-state actors simply lack the force needed to reach this threshold. When we search for the reasons behind Israeli actions, it is this singular military fact that explains Israeli decision-making.”
While the YouTube war continuesI want to include a recent Israeliaddition to the battle array:
Now is the time for the much needed national catharsis we revel in; all the self-flagellation that takes place after our military engagements that didn't go exactly according to plan.
Among other things we will blame our PR for our shortcomings knowing fully well that even good PR wouldn't have made us the "darlings of the western world."We are too strong to be underdogs so we are blacklisted ostracised and labeled apartheid oppressors. Since the people who malign us don't havethe time or patience to hear the whole narrative, they make do with the conveniently cropped version of the story.
It was a wonderfully clear winter's day. The Dead Sea panorama seen from the top of the rock was simply magnificent. The occasion I mention was a trip to Masada. A place I don't visit often. Our tour guide had just delivered his dramatic reenactment of the epic battle fought at the mountain fortress almost two thousand years ago. The siege bank, the remains of the fortifications enclosing Herod's palace and the adjuncts perched above the siege wall and the roman camps below, made everything seem so tangible. I could almost hear the din of battle and the cries of the defenders in their last terrible hours.
As I looked past the Roman camps, the cable car terminal and tourist facilities to the Dead Sea shore I paused to make my own mental reenactment of another almost forgotten battle. I brought to mind an event that occurred just beyond the span of living memory.
Early in 1918 as General Allenby's forces pushed north through "Palestine" it was clear that the Turkish 7th Army depended heavily on the food supplies being ferried across the Dead Sea. Given the task of destroying the enemy's supply line, pilots of number 1 Squadron of the Australian Flying Corps made low-level bombing and machine-gun attacks on successive convoys. But their slow flying cumbersome planes, Martinsyde fighter-bombers were almost impossible to manoeuvre when loaded with bombs. More often than not the Turkish supply boats managed to zigzag out of the line of fire and falling bombs.
Fortunately the old Martinsydes nicknamed "Tin Elephants" were being replaced by Bristol fighters. At that opportune stage the enterprising Aussie flyers, all volunteers from the Australian Light Horse unit in Allenby's army, contrived an ingenious way to convert one of the Martinsydes from a flying machine to a propeller driven catamaran. A number of the flyers were at one time mechanics, welders and metal workers. They stripped one of the now obsolete planes of its wings and tail unit and fashioned them into floats.
A description of the first battle engagement appears in the diary kept by one of the Aussie flyers. "One February morning in 1918, as a fleet of Turkish launches were ferrying supplies across the Dead Sea, a dull hum sounded on the lake behind them. Alarmed, the crews looked over their shoulders. All they could see was a swirl of spume approaching at a great speed. The Turks stared in terrified disbelief as the object drew level. Fitted with a large propeller in front and mounted on floats, it was a cross between an aeroplane and a boat. Suddenly a Lewis gun at the rear sputtered into action and the sailors dived into the sea to escape the fire and the weird monster."
Although the Martinsyde's lightning hit-and run raids on Turkish convoys failed to cause serious casualties it may have had an important psychological effect. Apparently demoralised by the spectacle of the strange monster, christened "Mimi" by the pilot turned skipper, roaring at them over the lake in a blur of salt spray, the Turks suspended the convoys. Instead they rushed a number of small gunboats overland in order to combat Mimi. However by the time the boats arrived Jerusalem had surrendered to Allenby and the Turks were retreating further north and east. The pilots continued flying support and surveillance missions and the one-boat Dead Sea Australian Navy was honourably decommissioned.
Only a few ancient bridges, bathhouses and a largely replaced codex of law remain to remind us of the four hundred year Ottoman sojourn in the Holy Land.
This week we probably parted with the little that remains of the once flourishing modern Israel-Turkish accord. It was the proud achievement of Ben Gurion's second line of defence, namely alliances forged with two Islamic states, outside the ring of enemy Arab states that encircled Israel. Close relations with Iran, before the return of Khomeiniand a firm alliance with Turkey before the current Abdullah Gul - Recep Tayyip Erdogan – regime came to power.Admittedly, relations with Turkey have deteriorated since Operation Cast Lead, however the Gaza flotilla incident may have been the "last straw."
From start to finish the flotilla embroilment was a lose-lose situation for Israel and a win-win prospect for Hamas. In writing this account I can't ignore the opinions voiced at our breakfast table parliament.
Every morning I listen to my friends and coworkers, that incomparable band of "know alls" expound their views on the topic of the day.
This forum of expert opinion knows exactly what we should have done!
Mulling these views while sipping my breakfast coffee, considering the wealth of news media material and my own gut-feeling I arrive at an overwhelming conclusion. The cards were stacked against Israel from the time the flotilla left Turkey and something went terribly wrong. Had we ignored this motley armada and let it anchor off Gaza and unload its cargo without surveillance, it would have been chalked up as a Hamas victory. This would have been tantamount to the lifting of the blockade, namely, a dangerous precedent.The free flow of goods into the Gaza Strip makes it easy to supply Hamas with weapons and armaments that are difficult to bring in via the smuggling tunnels. The Flotilla's organisers refused to dock at Ashdod in Israel or El Arish in Egypt and have their cargo transferred overland to Gaza, so a confrontation was inevitable. Once the six-boat flotilla (two stragglers have yet to arrive) left its anchorage off Cyprus the Israeli chain of command had ample time to plan its strategy. Accordingly Israel's public relations body should have prepared its own news media strategy and an effective coverage of the Israeli naval intervention.
Israeli military intelligence should have known from the start that not all the passengerson board the flotilla's flagship the Mavi Marmara were humanitarian aid workers and sympathisers. An article published in Die Welt the week relates to the flagship's passenger list and their motives.
"As always, the situation is more complex than it is being portrayed. It is telling that the fighting only broke out on one boat in the flotilla: the Mavi Marmara, the only passenger ship, which was commanded by the radical Islamic Insani Yardim Yakfi (IHH). It is a group that has, since the 1990s, been accused by the American and French secret services of maintaining ties to jihadist organisations under the guise of humanitarian aid. In recent years, they successfully collected donations for the terrorist Hamas organization, which they then smuggled into the Gaza Strip. It appears that there were radical Islamist elements aboard the IHH ship … who didn't want to limit their actions to peaceful resistance."
Columnist Richard Spencer's comments in the Telegraph were similar-
"One of the main groups involved in the flotilla that was raided by Israeli commandos yesterday (Monday) was the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief, which is a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency."
Open the following link to see how humanitarian they were when the Israeli boarding party landed on the deck of the Mavi Marmara:
A report in the New York Times quoted Martin S. Indyk former United States ambassador to Israel “This regrettable incident underscores that the international blockade of Gaza is not sustainable. It helps to stop Hamas attacks on Israelis, but seriously damages Israel’s international reputation. Our responsibility to Israel is to help them find a way out of this situation.”
Mr.Indyk, who is currently the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution says that, "after things cool down, the administration needs to work on a package deal in which Hamas commits to preventing attacks from, and all smuggling into, Gaza. In return, Israel would drop the blockade and allow trade in and out. “That deal would have to include a prisoner swap in which Gilad Shalit is finally freed,” he said.
"It's time for real disengagement," claims journalist Aluf Benn who writes a regular column in Haaretz. Benn also advocates ending the siege on Gaza,
"The attempt to control Gaza from outside, via its residents' diet and shopping lists, casts a heavy moral stain on Israel and increases its international isolation," he says.
Admittedly the flotilla's cargo unloaded at Ashdod amounted to about only 25% of the volume of goods that passes from Israel into the Gaza Strip every day. Therefore, if the flotilla had a humanitarian purpose it was little more than symbolical.
It's difficult to understand the logic that permits the entry of some goods and blocks items from passing the border crossing into Gaza.
Aluf Benn complains that, "every Israeli should be ashamed of the list of goods prepared by the Defence Ministry, which allows cinnamon and plastic buckets into Gaza, but not houseplants and coriander." This is corroborated by a list of prohibited items that appeared in the Economist on Tuesday.
Benn explains how an alternative to the Gaza Strip closure could be managed. "Israel would inform the international community that it is abandoning all responsibility for Gaza residents and their welfare. The Israel-Gaza border would be completely sealed, and Gaza would have to obtain supplies and medical services via the Egyptian border, or by sea. A target date would be set for severing Gaza's water and electricity systems from those of Israel. The customs union with Israel would end, and the shekel would cease to be Gaza's legal tender. Let them print their own Palestinian currency, featuring portraits of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.
Israel would also make it clear that it will exercise its right to self-defence by inspecting suspicious cargo on the high seas in order to thwart arms smuggling. That is also how the Western powers behave: They search cargo ships for nuclear weapons and missile components. And if we are shot at from Gaza, we will shoot back - with intent to cause harm. We have already proved that we can do so." Passing the buck to Egypt won't gain us popularity points in Cairo but it's certainly better than the present situation.
"This scenario has a precedent" claims Benn." Until the peace agreement was signed with Egypt, all of Israel's borders were sealed tight. Israel's foreign trade was conducted entirely via its air and sea ports. Even today, traffic over its land borders remains negligible.
This isn't pleasant, but it is legal. A sovereign state has the right to close its borders, especially when its neighbours are hostile.
The situation in which the border is intermittently open, based on the judgment of some anonymous Defence Ministry bureaucrat, is no longer acceptable to the world. It is perceived as intolerable brutality toward the civilian population of the party being blockaded."
Aluf Benn doesn't say how to free Gilad Shalit as part of his disengagement plan. Like Barak's withdrawal from Lebanon and Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza his suggestion has the same intrinsic flaw, namely, it is a unilateral move. However, the firmly entrenched Hamas intransigence shouldn’t be the reason for our intransigence.
"Those who oppose Israel's very existence will continue to fight and persecute it even if Jerusalem abandons the last shred of responsibility for Gaza. No disengagement will persuade them to change. But they are not the audience at which Israeli policy is aimed: Its target audience is Western governments, from which it needs support and with which it needs diplomatic and economic ties. And these Western governments are telling it to end the blockade and free Gaza.
Instead of arguing with the international community, it should tell it: You want Gaza? Fine. Take it." He concludes.
Giora Eiland wrote something similar in Yediot Ahronot today.
Finally an anonymous quote; “Even if the IDF was absolutely right to board the ship where it did and to open fire when it did, and Israel was 100 percent blameless, it does not matter, because perceptions are more important than reality.” Breaking news: Netanyahu said he is prepared to significantly ease the closure on the Gaza Strip.
