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.
Mimi
No comments:
Post a Comment