Today the New York Times editorial board weighs in on the disaster at sea. Here’s a brief look at its more notable statements. The editorial leads with the following:
“The supporters of the Gaza-bound aid flotilla had more than humanitarian intentions. The Gaza Freedom March made its motives clear in a statement before Monday’s deadly confrontation: ‘A violent response from Israel will breathe new life into the Palestine solidarity movement, drawing attention to the blockade.’”
This makes it seem like the flotilla organizers intended to provoke the violent Israeli response. This is a gross distortion of the Gaza Freedom March statement, which accurately noted that Israel was preparing a violent response, and merely tried to foresee a positive outcome whether or not Israel followed through. There is not a shred of evidence that the flotilla organizers intended anything other than humanitarian aid. They forced the issue; either Israel would have to allow the goods to pass through, or it would have to use force to stop it. Both responses would have negative consequences, as Israel would be hard-pressed to justify its interception of humanitarian goods when it was conducting a blockade.
Moreover, the organizers no doubt anticipated that any “violent response” by Israel would be similar to the prior Israeli actions against aid ships, such as ramming and crippling one ship and boarding another and arresting all on board. In fact, in the same public statement as the one quoted by the Times, the Gaza Freedom March stated: “Although the first five voyages successfully docked, the last three attempts have all been violently stopped by the Israeli military.”
The editorial makes it seem like the courageous souls who ventured on this trip were used, either willingly or unwillingly, as human sacrifices for the purpose of embarrassing Israel. It surely was not expected that Israel would increase its violence a thousandfold and actually execute a number of the volunteers to set an example.
The Times continues: “There can be no excuse for the way that Israel completely mishandled the incident.” Mishandled? That eliminates the possibility that Israel deliberately committed murder. One could say that BP has “mishandled” the oil gusher on the gulf coast, because no one suggests that BP intentionally executed the disaster. And it might not be fair to expect the Times to reach the conclusion of pre-planned murder, but it jumps to the opposite conclusion–mistaken judgment. “This is a grievous, self-inflicted wound.” Yes, it is. At least one hopes it will damage Israel’s image.
But Israel’s actions are first and foremost a “wound” directed at international humanitarian activists – a lethal wound for at least nine and injuries to dozens of others – and a blow to the million and a half people of Gaza. Israel is saying that these people have no possibility of relief from the crushing blockade, and that it will go to great lengths to prevent concerned people of the world from providing even a small measure of assistance. Did anyone ever suggest that a serial killer committed a “grievous, self-inflicted wound” by embarking on a course of conduct that led to his execution? Aren’t the victims entitled to primary consideration?
The Times proposes what it believes are the important questions to be resolved: “Why did Israel, which has blocked some ships but allowed others to pass, decide to take a stand now? Did it make a real effort to find a compromise with Turkey, which sanctioned the flotilla?” One can hardly think of lamer questions. These would be slow-pitched softballs served up to the Israeli PR machine.
“Israel has a right to stop weapons from going into Gaza, but there has been no suggestion that the ships were carrying a large cache.” “Large cache?” That suggests that there was at least a “small cache.” There was no “cache” at all. What do the Israelis claim to have found? Knives? There are knives in my kitchen, and no doubt there were knives in the galleys as well. Slingshots? What were those going to be used for? To hurl small stones into Sderot? Not to mention the bigger picture that Israel imports and manufactures billions of dollars per year of the most sophisticated killing machines ever invented, and has no right to complain even if there had been light weapons on board, which there were not.
“The Israeli Defense Forces have distributed a video showing that the commandos were attacked. Why weren’t they better prepared to defend themselves without using lethal force?” Once again, the Times buys Israel’s claim that it was attacked and that its mistake was in not being adequately prepared to respond.
Then the Times gets to the heart of the matter. “Is the blockade working? Is it weakening Hamas? Or just punishing Gaza’s 1.4 million residents —— and diverting attention away [sic] from abuses by Hamas, including its shelling of Israeli cities and its refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist?”
The blockade is a form of collective punishment against a civilian population, illegal under international law. It is not a question of whether or not it is “working.” Collective punishment often works, though in this case it surely is not; when it is effective, it is no less illegal. Moreover, Hamas stopped its shelling of Israel for months in 2008 in compliance with a cease fire, and only resumed when Israel broke the truce on US Election Day. Even then, Hamas offered to reinstate the cease fire if Israel lifted the blockade, and Israel flatly refused. Israel could have terminated the shelling peacefully rather than launching an offensive that killed about 1400 people and cruelly accomplished the almost impossible task of making the people of Gaza even more miserable than they already had been made by the blockade.
And what about now? There has been virtually no shelling for over a year, but does Israel lift the blockade? Why does the Times imply that the shelling is ongoing and that it still is a legitimate aim of Israel to stop it? “At this point, it should be clear that the blockade is unjust and against Israel’s long-term security.” That was not clear before? Did the Times previously think the severe restrictions on the amount of day-to-day goods available to the Gazans was “just”? Israel had coldly calculated how much was necessary to keep a million and a half people alive, and decided that any excess constituted “luxury” goods that could be barred from entering the Strip.
And now that the Times has seen the light, the principal flaw it finally identifies is damage to Israel’s long-term security. “Hamas is still in charge —— and the blockade has become an excuse for any and all of the government’s failures.” Excuse? In other words, the Times contends that Hamas provides inefficient, ineffective government, and unfairly blames Israel and its measly blockade for its failures.
Does the Times get anything right? Sort of, but at the end of the editorial. It properly criticizes Obama’s wishy-washy expression “deep regret” over the incident. Even then, the Times makes it clear this is about Israel, not about the suffering of the people of Gaza and the murderous attack on a humanitarian convoy, as it adds, “He is doing Israel no favors with such a tepid response.”
The Times scores again by saying, “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown time and again that he prefers bullying and confrontation over diplomacy. Washington needs to make clear to him just how dangerous and counterproductive that approach is.”
Of course, the Times does not suggest that Obama use leverage of threatening or even implementing a reduction in the enormous aid it gives Israel. Instead, he is urged to “back an impartial international investigation,” presumably along the lines of the Goldstone report that the Obama Administration has worked so hard to undermine and bury in oblivion. The Times also proposes that the US join in a Security Council effort to “urge” that Israel lift the blockade. Sure, that will work – urge, persuade, implore Israel to stop its four-year long sadistic siege.
While we’re at it, why doesn’t the US “urge” Israel to end the occupation and grant full and equal rights to the non-Jewish citizens of the country? Surely it is not yet time to impose actual pressure from the international community. After all, the US still practiced slavery nearly 90 years after the Declaration of Independence, and openly allowed ethnic discrimination against its citizens for another century. Israel at 62 is still relatively youthful, and prone to adolescent errors. Give it time.
A knowledgeable friend of mine emailed me this morning and asked if this was the harshest Times editorial against Israel in our lifetime. Sadly, that might be the case.
