How long can Americans deny international consensus?
A human rights group founded by Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland, with the likes of Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter, lately visited Jordan, Israel, and Palestine, with sadly predictable consequences:
conditions since her last visit in 2000 when she was UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights:
“Restricted access and limited movement of persons and goods
severely impacts the enjoyment of human rights such as health,
education, decent work, and the right to live free from violence. In
Gaza their civilization is being destroyed. I cannot believe that
Israelis understand what is being done in their name; they couldn’t
possibly support it if they did.”
"I am deeply saddened to see that the oppression and injustice suffered
by Palestinians is worsening. Women, who are effectively excluded from
decision-making, are bearing the greatest burden of both the Israeli
occupation and the political divisions within the occupied Palestinian
territory."
What specific change would you propose?
Israel MUST regulate its borders.
The only other conditions that I could see changing are Hamas' attitudes, and construction of a port, and for that to happen, Gaza would need to be part of an actual state, which would require reconciling with Fatah, which would require Hamas accepting PA negotiations with Israel.
"they couldn’t possibly support it if they did"
Yes they can.
Why would Gaza need to be part of an 'actual state' before a commercial port could be constructed? An why would an 'actual state' in Gaza require reconciliation with Fatah? What do you mean by 'actual state'? There is nothing stopping the development of a commercial port in Gaza except the IDF.
The current setup is a scam. Palestinian goods must come through the Israeli port of Ashdod, where they are 'taxed' without consent. There is no way the Israeli's will voluntarily allow a port in Gaza. Ashdod already has far more capacity than it needs: they will neither put up with competition nor forgo the 'hostage trade fees' that they now collect from Palestinian consumers. The notion that Gaza can't have a port because Israel 'MUST regulate its borders' is a classic red herring. The seaward blockade of Gaza has NOTHING to do with Israel 'regulating' its borders, and everything to do with Israel 'regulating' borders that DO NOT BELONG TO THEM. If Gazans had their own port, the Israelis couldn't starve them until they become obedient serfs. Hamas should take a chance, with the same discipline and courage that they showed when they blew up parts of the Israeli apartheid wall along the Philadelphia corridor, and set up a tiny port facility, enough for one ship, and declare a free trade zone. Of course they would need ISM and Free Gaza folks to be human shields in the port so the Israelis wouldn't just bomb it. And they would need monitors on any inbound freighters so the Israelis couldn't board and plant weapons and declare the whole thing a Hamas weapon smuggling plot.
Colin,
This is already being organized. Go to http://www.freegaza.co.uk
Of course human shields (only westerners are of use here) are a must.
Cool. Thanks for the tip Eva.
Please, Mary Robinson presided over the Durban ( Hitler had the right idea conference in 2001 ) Come to think of it. she fits in with the denizens of this blog very nicely. Oh, and Palestinian civilization. What the fuck is that. Before 1948 the term Palestinian referred to Jews. But I guess the wide scale adaptation of suicide bombing is a contribution of sorts.
"There is nothing stopping the development of a commercial port in Gaza except the IDF."
It is necessary that a port be administered, and in a way that international rules of transfer can be reliably handled. It becomes an international border, and requires a state administration to do so.
Gaza has the choice of becoming an independant state or a state with West Bank Palestine.
I get your frustration, but it takes establishing administration to run a port.
And, aside from the competition from Ashdod, Israel has very severe security concerns with a functioning port operated by a state that is in a declared state of war with Israel.
While it may be frustrating to regard Israel as having any veto over otherwise Palestinian affairs, the condition of permanent war with Israel is adolescent, and keeps Gaza treated as such.
Practically,
IF Gaza established a port, and used the port to provide materiel for guerilla actions against Israeli civilians, then Israel would justifiably invade again.
Peace is a better approach than this precipice agitation, as cool as it feels.
On the entry points.
Why do you object to Israel managing the entry points comparably to US/Mexico border is administered?
Which is the condition of the entry points so long as Hamas is enforcing the cease-fire on its end.
Richard: It is necessary that a port be administered, and in a way that international rules of transfer can be reliably handled. It becomes an international border, and requires a state administration to do so.
Colin: The elected Hamas government isn't adequate for the simple task of licensing a port authority? What does 'reliably handled' mean? What are 'international rules of transfer'? I suspect if a vestigial commercial port infrastructure is established, these will become non-issues to everyone but Israel. 'International' trade has been going on for 7000 years.
******
Richard: Israel has very severe security concerns with a functioning port operated by a state that is in a declared state of war with Israel.
Colin: So you admit that Israeli concerns with Gaza having a port have nothing to do with Israel 'regulating its own borders'. If your concerns are with security, spit it out. I disagree with your view on the lengths Israel has a right to go against innocents to achieve security, but I respect it as a legitimate view to hold: Israeli security is a completely legitimate concern, and has to be on the table. What I don't respect is skirting the issue with vague excuses. You will never find common ground with people, or even basic understanding of your point of view, if you use such tactics. Readers of this blog can easily see through this avoidance, and the natural suspicion is that you ashamed of your views. While I believe that no government has a 'right' to exist, and indeed none last, PEOPLE have a right to exist, INCLUDING Jewish people, and their security is a completely legitimate issue to discuss.
******
Richard: IF Gaza established a port, and used the port to provide materiel for guerilla actions against Israeli civilians, then Israel would justifiably invade again.
Colin: I agree that Israel has a right to respond to any unprovoked attacks on its civilians, in a matter consistent with its treaty obligations, i.e., the Fourth Geneva Conventions. Hamas could easily sidestep the question of a free port playing any role in weapons smuggling by allowing international monitors, including those trusted by Israel (and I guess Americans would be first choice) to permanently be stationed at said port.
******
Richard: Peace is a better approach than this precipice agitation, as cool as it feels.
Colin: The choice is for Gaza to have a port independent of Israeli control, or not. If a free port is established in Gaza, you would call this a result of 'precipitous agitation'? My 'agitation' in favor of Gaza having a free port is to prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent children. The ugly reality is that Israelis, and American Zionists, are so far down a spiral of fear, distrust, and hatred that I believe they have literally lost touch with the values that they hold dear, and cannot see what they are doing. Remember the horror that many Israelis felt after their complicity in the massacres at Sabra and Chatila? Israeli GOVERNMENT policy is to play 'chicken' with starving Gazans, and I do not trust that its decision makers have the ability to pull back before they cause mass mortality in Gaza. You worry about de-legitimization of the Israeli government? Let 20-30k children die of disease and hunger in Gaza before the eyes of the world and what the international community thinks will be the least of your worries. Half of Israelis already have foreign passports (and by some estimates, 10% of Israeli passport holders already reside abroad) and if a disaster happens in Gaza, the Israeli government will lose legitimacy in the eyes of many of it's own people. Israel is running the largest concentration camp in human history. And lest you think I am trivializing the Holocaust by using the phrase 'concentration camp', I use it in the strict dictionary sense of the word. Gaza is NOT a 'death camp', but it IS a concentration camp. I always strive to say EXACTLY what I mean, and try to choose my words carefully. For example, Israel is carrying out 'ethnic cleansing' NOT 'genocide', as some of the more excitable critics of the Israel government incorrectly assert. Anyway, running a concentration camp contributes nothing to peace. It is like pushing down the lid of a pot of boiling water, sure, you are keeping the steam bottled up now, but sooner or later it will blow out despite you best efforts, and then you will get burned.
I see three choices. First, a complete withdrawal of colonies AND Israeli security forces from the OPT, allowing a genuine (not a puppet) Palestinian government to be formed. Second, a bi-national state that abandons its explicit Jewish integration of synagogue and state, with equal civil rights for all. Palestinians are not going to be able to isolate their extremists with less than full implementation of either of these two options. You have to give the moderates something to work with. This will require a leap of faith of one sort or another by Israel, and because Jewish immigrants were the invaders after the Holocaust, the moral imperative is for them to make the first move, no matter how scary or painful it is. The ugly reality is that there is only one other choice, a gradual dissolution of legitimacy in the eyes of the entire rest of the world, and its own citizens, not only of the Jewish nature of the state, but the wisdom of large numbers of Jews living in the Holy Land in the first place. There are far, far too many Arabs proximate to the current borders of Israel for violence to be a stable long-term solution. Israel will not be able to maintain military supremacy forever, and the compliant governments of Jordan and Israel will not last forever either. This may take a hundred years, but it will surely happen if there is not a change in trajectory. If you see an alternate path, please share it.
Richard: Why do you object to Israel managing the entry points comparably to US/Mexico border is administered?
Colin: Err, because the US/Mexico border is between the US and Mexico, and the Gazan 'seaward' border is between Gaza and international waters, not Gaza and Israel. Honestly, I'm stunned that you would ask such a question. How on Earth could you possibly think that Israel would have a right to administer borders that are not its own?
I meant the compliant governments of Jordan and EGYPT in my second post.
I personally regard the legitimate rights of Israel to include BOTH managing its borders (for a gamut of reasons, including security), and its relations to a semi-state at long declared war with Israel.
"Hamas could easily sidestep the question of a free port playing any role in weapons smuggling by allowing international monitors, including those trusted by Israel (and I guess Americans would be first choice) to permanently be stationed at said port."
A good suggestion.
That is focusing on solution.
The precipice agitation, the attempt to force recognition of some "sovereignty", where no responsibility for sovereignty is taken is NOT a solution seeking approach.
There is NO statement of acceptance of Israel yet from Hamas. (Their consolation is that in a single letter, they accept 67 borders of Palestine, but no statement accepting Israel. Even if its implied to you, it needs to go further. It needs to be explicit to stop the state of war.)
When Hamas says, "we accept that Israel has a right to exist", and means it, the state of war will rapidly diminish and cease.
Its a simple and necessary recognition.
Until then, a state of war exists, and in a state of war, humanitarian concerns are valid, but assumptions that Gaza is sovereign and peer, are not valid.
As frustrating as it is.
How on Earth could you possibly think that Israel would have a right to administer borders that are not its own?
The survival of the Jewish species depends on it, Colin. Of course.
Sweeping-the-Jews-into-the-sea is the world's oldest military pathology.
Of COURSE the Gazans and their omnipotent naval apparatus cannot be trusted with a commercial seaport.
Who knows, as wily as they are, they might try to compete with Israel for settlers. Imagine that, beating the zionists at their own game! (Psst speculator friends–Jibaliya, it's the next Tel Aviv!)
I know that you people are a little weak on history. But remember the karine A. Weapons ship attempt by Yasir Arafat. When he wasn't fucking young boys of course.
Richard: There is NO statement of acceptance of Israel yet from Hamas.
Colin: Is there a statement of acceptance by Israel of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders of the OPT? No, there is not. Indeed, actions speak louder than words, the ethnic cleansing continues. Your assertion that peace is not possible unless Hamas agrees to some 'statement' makes it very clear to me that you have no interest in any peace except that where the Israeli boot lies perpetually on Arab necks. Making 'statements' is as meaningless as signing some piece of paper, calling it a peace treaty, and expecting people to abide by it because there is some ink on a page. Facts on the ground, what is in hearts and minds, the views of leadership, backed by acceptance of a critical mass of the general public to maintain continuity of policy, are what matters. This will NEVER be achieved with violence. Fortunately it appears that the relative proportion of those who share your views is diminishing. However, if this doesn't translate into policy changes, Israel as a Jewish and democratic state is doomed.
The Gazans have every right to be angry. It hasn't been that long since the last colony was removed. And the agricultural agreement that Israel made with Gazans was broken after the first harvest, with Gazan produce rotting in trucks because Israel would not let it through border crossings as per prior commitment. And they are STILL under occupation. The Israeli government has ZERO credibility for keeping its word. They are liars. They talk of 'the road map', and 'peace', and accelerate colonization during every lull. The onus is on them to take the first step with 'statements' and actually keep their word and follow through for once.
Richard: The survival of the Jewish species depends on it, Colin. Of course.
Colin: You have got to be kidding me. That is paranoia of the highest order. It's not 1945 anymore. First, you are making the assumption that Arabs are ready to mass-murder Jews. There is no evidence of this. Are there any historical examples of Arabs attempting to commit genocide on another people? Indeed, my assessment of the evidence is that thus far they have behaved in a far more civilized manner than you, and when the day comes when it is their boot on your neck, I think they will behave with far more compassion and restraint. Shame on you for your vicious racism. Second, the survival of the Jewish 'species' (since when are you a separate species? I doubt many other Jews will agree with your wording) is not dependent on the survival of Israel. Jews live and are accepted in many nations. Do you think American Jews are in danger of being wiped out? This is exactly what you imply when you say that the survival of the Jewish people is at stake, as if Jews outside of Israel are teetering on the edge. Not only do you hold intense racial prejudice against Arabs, but you hold it against us! Good grief, the notion that you would think Americans have some kind of 'exterminatory' level of hatred is beyond ridiculous. We really are a lot better than that. Jews are far, far safer in the United States of America than in Israel, a condition that I don't think will change anytime soon. Your people are in no danger of disappearing from the Earth, and using that as an excuse to continue ethnic cleansing and oppressing Palestinians is nonsense.
It seems to me that a major goal of the anti-occupation movement in America must be to address the fears that many Jews have that they are not safe here, and that Israel is absolutely essential for survival of the Jewish people. What would it take? In my opinion, there are not explicit criterion that can be satisfied because fundamentally, it is not a people that fear, but individuals. I think it will take time, perhaps several more generations, before a critical mass of individuals feel comfortable and safe such that the culture as a whole is changed. That is why I think the work that Phil does here is so very, very important. Changed perceptions can only happen one person at a time.
Oops, my bad. I mistook MM's post for one of yours Richard. I apologize, especially for my now obviously unwarranted aspersions on your being racist. It is a reason, but not an excuse: I did not read carefully enough, and completely missed his sarcasm. I will make sure that I do not make this inexcusable error again.
"and completely missed his sarcasm. I will make sure that I do not make this inexcusable error again."
Completely inexcusable indeed. One MM post is worth a thousand pages of Witty cant.
Colin,
How do you think that you can help change the status and welfare of Gazans for the better?
Realistically, rather than a fantasy that Israel should open its borders without restriction?
"When Hamas says, "we accept that Israel has a right to exist", and means it, the state of war will rapidly diminish and cease.
Its a simple and necessary recognition.
Until then, a state of war exists, and in a state of war, humanitarian concerns are valid, but assumptions that Gaza is sovereign and peer, are not valid.
As frustrating as it is."
False, false and false.
We played this very same game with the PLO and the PA in the 80's and 90's and every time there was recognition the Israeli response was the same – sheer panic. Followed by murdering innocent Palestinian civilians to provoke a response so as to have the Palestinians become the terrorist animals that they really are.
I'd say you have no idea about the history of Israeli games around the peace process but I'm quite sure you do. Its just that you are an unrepentant racist, Witty.
Of that there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever…..