FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal meets Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄŸlu in Ankara, 2006

The Palmer report expressing the conclusions of the UN commission chaired by former New Zealand PM Geoffrey Palmer about the Mavi Marmara incident last May 31 is now public.

For  a UN document, it is remarkably fair, including the following:

Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza.  The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law…

Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.  The majority of the flotilla participants had no violent intentions, but there exist serious questions about the conduct, true nature and objectives of the flotilla organizers, particularly IHH.  The actions of the flotilla needlessly carried the potential for escalation…

Israeli Defense Forces personnel faced significant, organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers when they boarded the Mavi Marmara requiring them to use force for their own protection.  Three soldiers were captured, mistreated, and placed at risk by those passengers.  Several others were wounded…

But,

The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable.  Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces.  No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths.  Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.

Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:

a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance.  In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred;

b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent.

As I understand the events, it looks like the committee bent over backward to find some culpability on the Israeli side. Non-violent options — paintball guns and flash-bang grenades — were used. The ships were warned several times that the Israelis would “adopt all measures at their disposal” to enforce the blockade, although it is true that they did not announce the precise time of boarding, for obvious and understandable tactical reasons.

Deadly force was not used by the commandos until live fire (at least from guns taken from captured Israelis and possibly from other weapons, although this is still not clear) was directed at them. In other words, knives and metal bars were not initially considered deadly weapons, although of course they are. There is no doubt that some of the Israelis would have been killed if they had not used their guns.

Options could not have been ‘reassessed’ when seriously wounded commandos were already in the hands of the IHH thugs. Considering the degree to which the Israelis were outnumbered, that firearms were in the possession of the passengers, and that several of the Israelis had been captured, the decision to shoot to kill was understandable.

The area in which Israel can and should be criticized is the poor intelligence and lack of preparation for the violent reception the naval commandos got when they boarded the ship.

Nevertheless, the conclusion that the blockade was legal and Israel was justified in stopping the ships, and that the Israeli commandos acted in self-defense constitutes a rare diplomatic victory for Israel. The committee went into detail, describing the number of rockets fired at Israel from Gaza, and the need and justification for Israel’s self-defense. It specifically stated that the blockade was not a disproportionate response to Hamas’ terrorism.

The report said that the Turkish government “should have done more” to prevent the violence, but did not discuss the very real probability that it was complicit with the IHH in planning it. Some of the connections between the Turkish regime and the IHH are exposed here:

4. The passengers, including the IHH operatives, stated that there were close relations between the organization and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and that the Turkish government was involved in preparations for the flotilla. The statements reinforce the original assassment that the objective of the flotilla was not merely to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, but focused on provocation and a violent confrontation with Israel.

5. According to statements from the passengers, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip ErdoÄŸan maintains close contacts with IHH. The flotilla set sail with the full knowledge and agreement of Erdogan, who expressed personal interest in its success and his intention to exploit it promote his status in Turkey and the Arab-Muslim world. Passengers said that before the flotilla set sail, Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan constructed a scenario based on a possible confrontation with Israel which he could use to further his own needs. The statements were supported by descriptions found in files on laptop computers belonging to the passengers.

6. That was supported by a statement from a journalist who had good connections with the heads of the Turkish government and with Bülent Yildirim, head of IHH. The following are statements from the journalist, who was a passenger on the Mavi Marmara:

A. Prime Minister Erdoğan’s power base is built on IHH activists. Without their help he could not have been elected prime minister.

B. The Turkish government was behind the flotilla to the Gaza Strip and its objective was to embarrass Israel: “The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.”

C. The flotilla was organized with the support of the Turkish government and Prime Minister ErdoÄŸan gave the instructions for it to set sail. That was despite the fact that everyone knew it would never reach its destination.

D. The affair of the flotilla strengthened Erdogan’s status in Turkey and turned him into the leader of Islamic world.

E. Three additional flotillas are expected to sail for Israel and the modus operandi will repeat itself.

F. The journalist stated he had visited the Gaza Strip as part of a humanitarian delegation and his impression was that there was no distress or lack [of commodities] in the Gaza Strip. He added that “everything is propaganda.”

7. In files found in laptops confiscated from Mavi Marmara passengers were other indications supporting the vast amount of information concerning the linkage between IHH and the Turkish government…

The report quoted narratives provided by the Turks and by the Israeli commission that investigated the incident. In almost every case the report accepted the Israeli account. In particular, it rejected claims by the Turks that fire was directed at passengers from helicopters and speedboats before the commandos rappelled to the deck.

The Turks have gone ballistic. Yesterday they threatened that in the absence of an Israeli apology, they would pursue

a … diplomatic offensive against Israel which would include pursuing legal action against Israeli military officers at The Hague, halting commercial ties between the countries, expelling Israel’s ambassador to Turkey, supporting the Palestinian bid for U.N. recognition of statehood and other diplomatic sanctions. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel over a year ago.

Israel did not agree to ‘apologize’, although in keeping with the recommendations of the report it will likely issue an expression of ‘regret’ and possibly compensate the families of the Turks that were killed.

Some Israelis actually think an apology would have been a good idea. Dan Margalit wrote,

An Israeli apology is not necessary for justice to be served. It’s not legally required, yet doing so would slow the deterioration of Turkish-Israeli relations. Ultimately, such an apology alone would not remove the topic from the international agenda, but it could reshape cold albeit stable relations with Turkey, and also show Israeli support for Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄŸan’s criticism of Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is currently slaughtering his own people.

I couldn’t disagree more. Turkish PM ErdoÄŸan has made the destruction of the former good relationship with Israel a fundamental part of his policy. As long ago as 2006,  he invited Hamas leaders to Ankara, claiming that “Hamas is not a terrorist group.” During Operation Cast Lead, he publicly insulted Israeli President Shimon Peres at a conference in Davos, Switzerland, saying “when it comes to killing, you know well how to kill” before stomping off the stage. He blamed Israel for the progress (although it was defeated) of a resolution calling for recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the US Congress. Circles in Turkey — primarily military officers — who supported the relationship with Israel have been purged. The Mavi Marmara affair was, in my opinion, a carefully planned maneuver to justify the final move to open hostility.

There is no possibility of improving relations, because for ErdoÄŸan, the worse they are the better for his Islamist credentials. And while it is correct that ErdoÄŸan is opposing Bashar Assad, his goal is to install in his place a Sunni Islamist regime that will be controlled by Turkey. I’m not sure that this would be better than Assad.

An apology would only constitute a humiliation for Israel — always important to poseurs like ErdoÄŸan — set the stage for further demands to remove the blockade and provide grounds for  legal action, and magnify ErdoÄŸan ‘s image in the Muslim world.

The best summary of the whole ugly business was provided by the journalist quoted above:

“The Turks set a trap for you and you fell into it.”

Technorati Tags: Israel, Turkey, Palmer report, ErdoÄŸan, Mavi Marmara

Iron Dome -- it's not a panacea

The Iron Dome system is a very mixed blessing. During recent rocket attacks the system intercepted many (but not all) rockets fired at populated areas. Now an additional battery is being deployed to protect Ashdod, one of the targets for Grad missiles.

War, like many things, is an economic activity. Resources must be allocated where they will be most effective, and there is never an unlimited amount of money. So deploying Iron Dome to protect the civilian population is a decision to use scarce resources in a particular way.

Some critics say that the system enables the terrorists’ economic warfare against Israel, since each projectile fired by Iron Dome costs $40,000, while rockets are relatively cheap. But of course the cost of the damage caused by rockets which get through (not to mention possible loss of life) as well as the cost of alternative means of deterrence — helicopter missions aren’t cheap either — must be considered.

In my opinion, Israel should not rely on Iron Dome or similar systems for defense of the civilian population for a different reason. This is that while passive defense systems may useful tactically, dependance on them is a poor long-term strategy, from  military, psychological and political points of view.

Militarily, reliance on defense allows the enemy to stockpile missiles and build infrastructure without interference. A large stockpile of missiles allows them to attack by ‘saturation’, firing more missiles than the systems can intercept in a given period. No matter how many batteries are deployed, it’s always possible to overwhelm them by firing enough missiles. In addition, if the terrorists are allowed to continue infrastructure development undisturbed — digging tunnels, building bunkers, etc. — then this will be disadvantageous if (when) at a later date there is a direct confrontation.

It is also the case that shooting down rockets does not deter the enemy from building and firing more of them. Only retaliation directed at the enemy soldiers, the storage and manufacturing facilities, smuggling tunnels and commanders of the terrorist groups can do that. These kind of operations must not have resources diverted from them on the grounds that Iron Dome will protect the population.

Finally, it is simply too expensive to deploy so as to protect all possible civilian targets, especially as the enemy is likely to develop countermeasures that will render it less effective (this is borne out by history). If there are weak spots, these are where the enemy will attack, and rockets will get through.

Psychologically, reliance on defense is a signal that the terrorists are allowed to shoot at us. Retaliation makes the opposite statement. The world press barely covers rocket fire into Israel (although it does cover Israeli retaliation). The world is coming to expect and accept that Jews may live in a shooting gallery. Paradoxically, even negative coverage of a strong response sends the message that we won’t permit it.

Politically — and this may be the strongest point of all — the existence of somewhat effective defensive systems can and will be used as an excuse to prevent Israel from aggressively striking back at the terrorists, which is the only way they will be defeated. In particular, the Iron Dome’s cost of approximately $50 million per battery [!] is primarily being funded by the US. Does this give Barack Obama room to argue that Israel should not retaliate or preempt terrorist attacks? I think it does.

Iron  Dome can be highly effective in protecting critical military or industrial infrastructure, like airbases or oil refineries. But in my opinion, it should not be deployed — and expected — to defend the civilian population. Rather, Israeli policy should be to retaliate with deadly and escalating force against the groups firing the rockets. This will do the following:

• It will weaken the enemy by killing its soldiers and destroying its infrastructure
• It will deter the enemy from future attacks, and deter potential enemies from making war
• It will send a message that the Jewish state and the Jewish people will not permit themselves to be a target

Technorati Tags: Israel, Iron Dome

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon gets ready to lay a wreath at the tomb of murderous terrorist Yasser Arafat, in Ramallah, 2007

Today, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen  (R-Fl), chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee, introduced the “UN Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act of 2011,” HR 2829.

It combines an approach to US funding for the UN which supports American goals and interests with provisions that specifically target some of the UN’s bullying tactics against Israel, which — it should be remembered — is allegedly an ally of the US.

The bill says that the US will not fund UN activities that are in opposition to our interests by making our contributions for various programs voluntary rather than assessed. It states that the UN cannot use our money for purposes other than those for which it was intended. It withholds US contributions for any program that will upgrade the status of the Palestine observer mission, and ends US funding for the Hamas-friendly UNRWA refugee agency, the corrupt UN Human Rights Council, and the “Durban process.” It also includes a provision condemning the Goldstone report and calling for its revocation.

A summary of the bill is here and a news report about the bill and reactions to it is here.

It has 57 original co-sponsors. They are all Republicans. The Obama Administration opposes the bill because “This draft legislation is dated, tired, and frankly unresponsive to the positive role being played by the UN,” according to a spokesperson.

The reference is to UN support of US actions in Afghanistan and Libya. But the Ros-Lehtinen bill wouldn’t prevent that kind of cooperation — indeed, it would make it more likely, since UN officials would have an interest in pleasing the US (and of course it depends on individual nations, not the UN bureaucracy).

In actuality, the UN does not play a positive role in almost anything. Many of the useful specialized agencies like the International Telecommunications Union, the World Health Organization, etc. could be spun off, at which point the rest of it could profitably disappear. Short of that, by tying US funding to the actual activities of the units funded, Ros-Lehtinen’s bill could provide some accountability.

Just as an example, how many Americans enjoy having their taxes support the UN’s Special Unit on Palestinian Rights (UNISPAL) and its annual International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (every November 29, the anniversary of the partition resolution that they rejected)? Not too many, I’ll bet. What about the paying the salary of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, Richard Falk, who has publicly accused the US government of complicity in 9/11 and recently apologized to dogs for comparing them to Jews?

There is no reason why this has to be a partisan issue. Aren’t there Democrats who resent having their money ($3.35 billion in 2010) spent by an unaccountable organization which as often as not opposes our national interests? Or Democrats who would like to see the UN reined in from attacking Israel?

We’ll see.

Technorati Tags: UN, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

A map of Palestine, according to Israel's peace partner

Especially now, when the world is preparing to award the Palestinians a state — and, if things go according to plan, ethnically cleanse as many as 650,000 Jews from the land ‘that the Palestinians want for their state’ (as the media repetitiously intone) — we need to remind ourselves of who the Palestinian Arabs are:

They are the personification of the atavistic Arab culture that does not abide an alien element in its midst.

They are the bearers of the myth of Arab expulsion and the reality of refugeehood — although the Jews aren’t responsible for this, we are the ones who are paying for it.

They are the popularizers of terrorism as a means to achieve political goals, the inspiration for Al Qaeda and others.

They are a source of manpower for some of the world’s most vicious terrorist gangs.

They are remarkably cruel, to their enemies and to each other. They consider cruelty ‘masculine’.

They are the focus for the mental disorders of Jews like Larry Derfner (see here and here), who confuse their irrational guilt and suicidal impulses with morality.

They are the primary tool of Arab, Muslim, European and world-wide antisemitism, which aims above all to end the Jewish state so that the Jewish people can be persecuted out of existence.

Today the world’s  leading Jew hater is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who — like Hitler — combines geopolitical goals with antisemitic ones. His objective is to remove US influence in the Middle East, get control of the region’s resources and establish a Shiite caliphate. He sees the existence of Israel as a major stumbling block for all of these enterprises, as well as an affront to Islam.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons to strengthen its hand, but Ahmadinejad has said on several occasions that the Palestinian Arabs will be the weapon that will ultimately destroy Israel.

TEHRAN — The creation of a universally-recognized Palestinian state would be just a first step towards wiping out Israel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday…

“Recognizing the Palestinian state is not the last goal. It is only one step forward towards liberating the whole of Palestine,” Ahmadinejad told worshippers at Friday prayers on international Qods Day — an annual show of support for the Palestinian cause.

“The Zionist regime is a center of microbes, a cancer cell and if it exists in one iota of Palestine it will mobilize again and hurt everyone.”

“It is not enough for [the Palestinians] to have a weak, powerless state in a very small piece of Palestine. They should unite to establish a state but the ultimate goal is the liberation of the whole of Palestine,” he said.

“I urge the Palestinians never to forget this ideal. Forgetting this ideal is equal to committing suicide. It would be giving an opportunity to an enemy which is on the verge of collapse and disappearance.”

It should be obvious that the threat to peace emanates from Iran, not from the lack of a Palestinian state.

The job of Israel’s government is to protect the Jewish state, and by extension the Jewish people. It is not to provide a solution for the Palestinian Arabs. The Oslo agreement of 1993 represented a disastrous deviation from its purpose, and has already resulted in thousands of Israeli (and Arab) victims. Oslo was negotiated in secret and foisted on the public — and I think on Yitzhak Rabin as well — by a cabal of  politicians who understood that it would never be accepted by the great majority of Israelis, who (correctly, it turned out) didn’t trust the PLO.

Whether or not it was originally intended to do so, the Oslo-initiated process has come to stand for the uprooting of Jews from the area east of the Green Line — the wholly arbitrary 1949 armistice line. The Palestine Mandate encouraged the ‘close settlement’ of Jews on the land — all of the land. And Jews lived in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem until they were forced out at gunpoint by Jordanian soldiers in 1948. Now the ‘process’ as interpreted by Barack Obama and Mahmoud Abbas calls for yet another expulsion.

When 8,000 Jews were removed from the Gaza strip, it was a national catastrophe which still, 6 years later, hasn’t healed. When Avigdor Lieberman suggested that a peace treaty could include ‘land swaps’ in which Arab populated areas west of the line would become part of Palestine while Jewish settlements east of it would be joined to Israel, the Arabs screamed bloody murder — even though Lieberman was considering only a change of sovereignty in which nobody would have to leave their homes. That was a non-starter, but transfer of 650,000 Jews is considered reasonable!

At this critical point, Israel must take a turn toward reality and officially recognize the following:

• The ‘peace process’ never had a chance because the Arabs never wanted less than to replace Israel. It will officially end when the Palestinians go to the UN.
• The Palestinian Arabs are not the ‘other side’ in the conflict — they are primarily a tool of Israel’s more powerful enemies. Concessions to them are intended to weaken Israel strategically.
• European and Obama Administration efforts to force negotiations for a ‘two-state solution’ constitute hostile diplomacy. Israel should resist, not support them. They won’t go anywhere, and are simply a way to force concessions.
• The expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria would be a disaster. It would wreck Israeli society, even if the resources were available to house the refugees inside the Green Line, which they aren’t. It cannot be allowed to happen.

Technorati Tags: Israel, peace process

Facing reality about 'land for peace'

The Land for Peace theory (LFP)  has always been something like this:

Israel and the Arab states are in conflict. The conflict can be ended if Israel gives up the lands it occupied in 1967.

This proposition was suspicious even in 1967, since the Jewish state — or even the Jews in pre-state Palestine — had never had peace until then, even without the territories. But the world in general — certainly the US and the European Union  — at least pretends that it is true, and  has worked hard to get Israel to divest itself of the land. So far Israel has evacuated the Sinai peninsula and the Gaza strip, surrendering them to complete Arab control. This represents by far the greater part of the lands conquered in 1967.

The Oslo accords included a great concession by Israel: the PLO — which had been responsible for numerous murderous terrorist attacks against Israelis inside and outside of Israel — was allowed to return to the territories and constitute itself as a government, the Palestinian Authority. As a result of the Oslo accords, about 95% of the Arab population of Judea and Samaria now live in areas under Palestinian civil control.

One would think that if LFP were true, then there would have been movement toward peace as a result of Israel’s concessions. But this has not proven to be the case:

With regard to the Sinai, although the Egyptian regime refrained from overt conflict (in return for billions in US aid), it did not reign in incitement, nor did it take steps to improve relations with Israel. The ‘peace treaty’ was treated as an extended cease-fire, and now as the regime changes we are seeing a retreat from the idea of peace.

With regard to Gaza, in effect a continuous state of war with Israel exists, and only fear of massive military intervention keeps a lid — loosely — on terrorism.

With regard to Judea and Samaria, the PLO never accepted the ‘peace’ part of the LFP formula, insisting on receiving land without granting recognition (Mahmoud Abbas recently reiterated his refusal to accept a Jewish state as a neighbor to ‘Palestine’). The PLO does not accept the idea of ‘two states for two peoples’ and understands the ‘two-state solution’ as an Arab ‘Palestine’ free of Jews, and an Israel which — by virtue of ‘right of return’ — will have an Arab majority.

Although Israel made proposals for Arab sovereignty in 2000 and 2008, they were not accepted because they included a rejection of right of return and insistence on recognition.

It should finally be clear that LFP is not a possible solution to the conflict, because the Arabs have never accepted that a Jewish state may exist in the Middle East.

Now the PLO (with or without Hamas as a partner — the relationship is unclear) is going to the UN to demand the land without providing anything — even words — in return. And most of the world seems to think that’s just fine:

“The maximum that we can hope to gain [at the UN vote] is for a group of states who will abstain or be absent during the vote,” [Israeli UN Ambassador Ron] Prosor wrote, adding that his comments are based on more than 60 meetings he held during the past few weeks with his counterparts at the UN. “Only a few countries will vote against the Palestinian initiative,” he wrote…

Foreign Ministry sources estimate that 130-140 states will vote in favor of the Palestinians. A major question mark remains over the position of the 27 member states of the European Union…

A senior source at the Foreign Ministry, which is busy trying to foil the Palestinian move at the UN, said that so far only five western countries have promised Israel they would vote against recognition of a Palestinian state — the U.S., Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic. “Most western countries will not be willing to be in the hall and vote against a Palestinian state,” the senior Foreign Ministry source said.

Of course, such a General Assembly resolution will not create a Palestinian state, and cannot be used to force Israel to do anything. Only the Security Council can apply sanctions or admit a state to the UN. However the GA resolution will be used as the basis for ‘lawfare’ against Israel, and is clearly the beginning of the process of implementing LFP, without the peace. And only the US stands against a Security Council resolution. May I be excused for thinking that Barack Obama is a weak reed to lean on?

The official position of the Israeli government is that LFP can work, and that it’s possible to reach an accommodation by bilateral negotiation with the PLO that will result in a viable Palestinian state in the territories, and peace. It therefore opposes a UN resolution.

It also points out, correctly, that such a resolution violates all of the agreements between Israel and the Arabs since 1967: UN Security Council resolution 242 (and others) which call for negotiations between the parties, the Oslo agreements, the Road Map, etc.

Although I understand that it is important for the Israeli government to scrupulously maintain what it believes to be the most responsible position, I think it should officially recognize the failure of LFP. This is only a question of opening one’s eyes and seeing reality.

Therefore,  if the PLO seeks a UN resolution supporting a unilateral declaration of statehood, Israel should announce the following:

1. It will assume that the PLO has abrogated all previous agreements, including Oslo
2. It will cease all cooperation with the ‘Palestinian Authority’, which was created by Oslo
3. It will annex those portions of Judea and Samaria that have large Jewish populations or have high strategic or historic importance (note that this will still leave 95% of the Arab population of Judea/Samaria outside of Israel)
4. It will unilaterally delimit an eastern border and finish the security fence in keeping with it
5. It will defend its borders vigorously

Technorati Tags: Israel, land for peace, Arabs, PLO, UN, Palestinian state