Criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic”

Israel and its American lobbyists were once fond of using a sledgehammer to pound critics. The sledgehammer was, of course, the loosely-wielded accusation that objections to Israel’s occupation were “anti-Semitic.” Of course, for most people anti-Semitism is like pornography — you recognize it when you see it. Swastikas on walls, death threats, discrimination, slurs, publications like the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or stories like the “blood libel” and assumptions about the physiology or psychology of Jews were all recognizable features of anti-Semitism. Jewish “rootlessness,” “clannishness,” “cosmopolitanism,” or avarice were as common as charges that Jews controlled the global economy. To all of this the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia added the rejection of Jewish nationality (meaning “peoplehood” and clearly not, in 1906, referring to a state):

While the term Anti-Semitism should be restricted in its use to the modern movements against the Jews, in its wider sense it may be said to include the persecution of the Jews at all times and among all nations as professors of a separate religion or as a people having a distinct nationality.

So it was understandable when Israel’s critics, in response, uttered a collective “You’ve got to be kidding” and waved the classical definitions of anti-Semitism back at the accusers.

So Israel simply redefined anti-Semitism.

Redefining anti-Semitism

In 2005 Natan Sharansky developed a definition of anti-Semitism which was published in the Jewish Political Studies Review and is now used by many Jewish and political organizations.

Sharansky’s definition of anti-Semitism completely throws out ill-treatment of Jews as individuals or a people and replaces the “Jewish people” with the “state of Israel”:

The first “D” is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz – this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second “D” is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel’s Magen David Adom, alone among the world’s ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross – this is anti-Semitism.

The third “D” is the test of delegitimization: when Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied – alone among all peoples in the world – this too is anti-Semitism.

A Jewish child taunted for wearing a yarmulke and bullied on the way home would not be the victim of anti-Semitism according to this revisionist definition.

“Delegitimization” equals a Palestinian State

In the last few years Sharansky’s last “D” has been getting quite the workout. The Reut Institute, an Israeli think tank, has developed a strategy for fighting Israel’s critics by labeling them “delegitimizers” and “naming and shaming” them. As BDS becomes a more accepted way of challenging the occupation, Israel is fighting back by categorizing BDS supporters as “delegitimizers” and anti-Semites. The concept has entered Israeli consciousness to the point that politicians bludgeon each other with it. Tzipi Livni recently accused Benjamin Netanyahu of delegitimizing Israel. Everything is potentially delegitimizing. The Gaza flotilla was described as a delegitimization effort. The Goldstone report was seen as another such effort. Refusing to buy Jaffa oranges is too.

But, by far, the most creative application of “delegitimization” is that a Palestinian state will delegitimize Israel, according to Uzi Arad, chairman of Israel’s National Security Council. For Arad, Palestinian legitimacy equals Israeli delegitimization and talk of two states only fosters this:

On the one hand, most of the people of Israel see the two-state solution as the path to a peace agreement. There are even quite a few Israelis who have mobilized for a Palestinian state and the promotion of its legitimacy, and are winning converts to it.

What they do not notice is that this claims a certain price. The more you market Palestinian legitimacy, the more you bring about a detraction of Israel’s legitimacy in certain circles. They are accumulating legitimacy, and we are being delegitimized.

So one doesn’t even have to deny Israel’s right to exist. Simply calling for a parallel Palestinian state makes one an anti-Semite, as Jewish groups like J Street are beginning to discover.

While Arad says that most Israelis want a two-state solution, Israel’s political parties and members of the Knesset have apparently not heard. For instance, no one who has bothered to read the Likud platform really believes that Israel has ever been dedicated to two states:

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. [..] The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

It is therefore questionable if the polls are correct and Israelis really want a two state solution. Or, if they do, what they mean by two states.

No Palestinian State equals a One State Solution

It is pronouncements like Arad’s that convince many that Israel will never accept a Palestinian state.

But Arad is hardly alone in rejecting two states.

A few weeks ago Moshe Arens, who has served as both defense and foreign minister with the Likud, suggested simply granting citizenship to Palestinians:

Unlike the dire predictions heard so often, Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria would not be the end of the State of Israel, nor would it mean the end of democratic governance in Israel. It would, however, pose a serious challenge to Israeli society. But that is equally true for the other options being suggested for dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This option of Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria merits serious consideration.

The one-state solution is an option that many Palestinians now recognize as inevitable, although they might take issue with Arens’ claims that Israel would “continue” to govern democratically. For instance, the Palestine Strategy Group, which represents the viewpoints of Israeli, occupied, and Diaspora Palestinians, examined different state formations in a paper it published in 2008, Palestinian Strategic Options to End Israeli Occupation. While a Palestinian state has always been a national goal, the end of Occupation is an even greater goal:

[…] So, if Israel refuses to negotiate seriously for a genuine two-state outcome, Palestinians can and will block all four of them by switching to an alternative strategy made up of a combination of four linked reorientations to be undertaken singly or together. […]

• Fourth, the shift from a two state outcome to a (bi-national or unitary democratic) single state outcome as Palestinians’ preferred strategic goal. This reopens a challenge to the existence of the State of Israel in its present form, but in an entirely new and more effective way than was the case before 1988. […]

Is this what Israel wants? Israel cannot prevent Palestinians from a strategic reorientation along these lines. Does Israel really want to force Palestinians to take these steps?

One of the authors has described this option as simply shutting down the PA and turning the struggle for a sovereign state into a civil rights struggle. Given the fact that Israel’s land grab has already eliminated the possibility of a viable contiguous state and Israel itself is ideologically opposed to a Palestinian state, a single state appears inevitable. And because of demographics, that state will not remain exclusively Jewish.

A number of political analysts share this view. John Mearsheimer recently discussed the inevitability of a single state in detail in a talk last April at the Palestine Center, in which he began:

Contrary to the wishes of the Obama administration and most Americans — to include many American Jews — Israel is not going to allow the Palestinians to have a viable state of their own in Gaza and the West Bank. Regrettably, the two-state solution is now a fantasy. Instead, those territories will be incorporated into a “Greater Israel,” which will be an apartheid state bearing a marked resemblance to white-ruled South Africa.  Nevertheless, a Jewish apartheid state is not politically viable over the long term. In the end, it will become a democratic bi-national state, whose politics will be dominated by its Palestinian citizens. In other words, it will cease being a Jewish state, which will mean the end of the Zionist dream.

It is ironic, but Zionism’s own excesses, rather than external enemies, have destroyed the dream of a Jewish state.

Once again J Street’s positions fail to significantly distinguish it from AIPAC. Today J Street joined with AIPAC and broke with Americans for Peace Now in applauding new sanctions on Iran. To its credit, J Street made one distinction from AIPAC — in calling for continued diplomacy and warning against war:

We believe that a dual track approach that combines meaningful diplomatic engagement with broad-based sanctions is necessary to convince Iran to clarify its nuclear intentions. We commend the President for his efforts in strengthening the resolve of the international community on Iran. […]

We reiterate that nothing in this bill should be taken as authorizing or encouraging the use of military force against Iran. We are opposed to the use of military force by Israel or the United States against Iran.

While J Street joined with AIPAC in welcoming the sanctions, it broke with APN and Gush Shalom. Americans for Peace Now, on whose board J Street’s Jeremy Ben Ami also sits, condemned the sanctions. APN’s Deborah Lee issued a statement which contained this critique of sanctions — any sanctions:

APN’s core concern about this bill remains unchanged: imposing sanctions the goal of which is to ‘cripple’ the civilian economy and inflict misery on the population — in the hopes that this population will rise up against its government — is a flawed and in all likelihood counterproductive approach.  It is an approach that has failed for decades in Iran. It failed in Iraq and Haiti. It has failed in Cuba and North Korea. And it is an approach that only last week Israel abandoned in Gaza, recognizing that squeezing the population of Gaza with a blockade on civilian goods had not only failed to force Hamas out of power, but had enabled Hamas (and the world) to blame Israel for all the misery the people of Gaza were facing. It took Israel three years to recognize the error of this approach.  It is regrettable that Congress did not draw the obvious lesson from these experiences.

While J Street has taken it on the chin from mainstream Jewish organizations and the Israeli Lobby for its unwavering support of a Two State solution, many of its recent positions — endorsing supplemental military aid for Israel and sanctions on Iran — seem designed to blunt right-wing criticisms and win supposedly “moderate” Jewish support.

But aside from a position truly supportive of two states, J Street is beginning to look much like AIPAC. J Street has adopted the Obama approach: position yourself as a progressive, but consistently make tactical political calls that sell out progressive principles. Positions on the Goldstone report, BDS, sanctions, supplemental military aid,  slamming the UN — all have been disappointing echoes of AIPAC.

Today J Street took the additional step of distancing itself from even the progressive Zionist peace movement.

J Street has a short window in which to establish itself as a voice for something new in the Middle East.

Where is that voice?

Sometimes disparate news items all come into focus as parts of a larger story.

“Material Support” for terrorists expanded to include Free Speech

This week the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a ban on providing “material support” to terrorist groups. The particular “material support” in a case brought by the government against the Humanitarian Law Project referred to the Project’s efforts to advise the Kurdistan Worker’s Party on non-violent means to resolve conflicts with the Turkish government. In its 6-3 ruling the Supreme Court essentially scrapped the First Amendment by declaring that, in the interests of fighting terror, the government had the right to determine who Americans can talk to and what kind of speech is permitted.

“Not even the ‘serious and deadly problem’ of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote. “There is no obvious way in which undertaking advocacy for political change through peaceful means or teaching the PKK and LTTE, say, how to petition the United Nations for political change is fungible with other resources that might be put to more sinister ends in the way that donations of money, food, or computer training are fungible.”

“The decision sends a clear message that the First Amendment does not protect even the most benign forms of advocacy on behalf of groups designated as ‘foreign terrorist organizations’ by the Secretary of State,” said Stephen I. Vladeck of the American University Washington College of Law.

Even conservative Justice Roberts wrote that Kagan’s positions had gone too far. “The government is wrong,” he wrote, “that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct” and not speech protected by the First Amendment. But he nevertheless concluded that combating terrorism trumped protection of free expression.

Justice Sotomayor, in dissenting, said that “under the government’s definition, teaching these members to play the harmonica would be unlawful.”

Demonstrating the high caliber of arguments for the majority position, Justice Scalia replied, “Well, Mohamed Atta and his harmonica quartet might tour the country and make a lot of money.”

Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court

The ruling highlighted President Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan, who appears to on her way to be the Court’s newest conservative justice.

It was Kagan who argued the government’s case as Solicitor General. Kagan has also defended indefinite detention without trial.

When liberal Justice John Paul Stevens retires, he will most likely be replaced by Kagan. To the many other disappointments with the Obama administration this can be added.

Freedom of Speech will now be regulated by lobbyists

Although the Secretary of State maintains the official lists of whom Americans can talk to or visit, this list is subject to tinkering, political posturing and lobbying by foreign governments and their friends.

A case in point is the recent call by AIPAC, an Israeli lobbying group, to redefine the Turkish charity, IHH, as a terrorist group. The call was enthusiastically endorsed by a majority of Congressmen from both parties.

Based on documents supplied by AIPAC, echoing Israel’s claims that the charity “has well documented ties to Hamas and has been linked to other Islamic terrorist organizations, including al‐Qaeda,” Congress will likely add it and additional politicized (but hardly terrorist) organizations to the State Department’s watch lists – even though the State Department itself has never established such “documented ties.”

Oh, well, with a bit more lobbying and a few more PAC contributions I’m sure such ties will be “established.”

Over the last few years I have struggled with the idea of BDS. A year and a half ago I set about informing myself of the different kinds of BDS tactics.

About a year ago I visited Israel and Palestine. One of the people I met was Omar Barghouti, a well-known voice for BDS. Nothing about divestment from occupation or military-related industries – whether Israeli or international corporations – seemed inappropriate at the time, but I had reservations about cultural boycotts and felt that consumer boycotts were meaningless or even destructive. Part of the reason is that I have Israeli friends – great people who share a vision for peace but will be affected by these campaigns.

This year – having seen the occupation up close and having a chance to think about it – it was more difficult to define the parameters of what was appropriate and what was not, but I gave nuance and thoughtfulness my best shot.

And I’m not alone. Lots of Jews have grappled with BDS. Jerry Haber, in an excellent piece, analyzes Bernard Avishai’s nuanced and thoughtful reflection on the subject in his Nation article. Avishai is a decent guy, a progressive Zionist whom I heard speak last October in Washington. His ethical gyrations reminded me of my own.

Avishai, like numerous other liberal Jews, voices the great fear that BDS will drive even progressive Israelis into the arms of the right, and that BDS would create a “siege mentality” in Israel – and on this basis he advocates selective application of BDS tactics. Yet Haber parts with Avishai and describes how he added his name to a petition for TIAA-CREF’s divestment from Israel.

Where I part with Avishai’s arguments – an argument shared by well-respected figures in the Israeli peace movement like Uri Avnery – is that it’s way too late: Israel has been in a siege mentality almost since its founding. If this is the primary progressive Jewish argument against BDS, it’s a non-starter.

As we have by now been forced to recognize, Israel itself admits that the blockade of Gaza is meant to strangle the Gazan economy and punish its people. This has become such a well-known secret that Chuck Schumer can recite the same rationale (“Strangle them economically”) to Orthodox constituents without fear of being labeled a bigot, as Helen Thomas was. And it’s not just Gaza. Palestinians in the West Bank cannot travel and their economy is still severely limited by Israeli control. Critics of Israel, NGOs, and just recently a German development minister, have all been barred from Israel-controlled areas.

Finally it was clear to me: the Israeli government doesn’t appreciate nuance and that force might be the only language they understand. Economic force.

All this being the case, why is it not appropriate that Israel drink its own medicine as long as the Palestinians are forced to? There are no longer any justifications for any more tortured, nuanced discussions of BDS. It’s a matter of justice, and a simple matter at that.

Boycotts, divestment, and sanctions should be applied to Israel until the day that the Israeli equivalents of BDS (economic strangulation, restrictions on travel, etc.) cease to be imposed on Palestinians and international critics of Israel’s occupation.

If anyone thinks that Israel has any intention of sharing Palestine with its existing inhabitants, please read the Peace & Security portion of the Likud’s platform:

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

The Likudniks are still peeved that they never got what they regard as their proper amount of land from the British:

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. [..] The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

Jerusalem

Jerusalem is the eternal, united capital of the State of Israel and only of Israel. The government will flatly reject Palestinian proposals to divide Jerusalem, including the plan to divide the city presented to the Knesset by the Arab factions and supported by many members of Labor and Meretz. […] The Likud government will act with vigor to continue Jewish habitation and strengthen Israeli sovereignty in the eastern parts of the city…

The Jordan River as a Permanent Border

The Jordan Valley and the territories that dominate it shall be under Israeli sovereignty. The Jordan river will be the permanent eastern border of the State of Israel. The Kingdom of Jordan is a desirable partner in the permanent status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians in matters that will be agreed upon.

Security Areas

The government succeeded in significantly reducing the extent of territory that the Palestinians expected to receive in the interim arrangement. The government will insist that security areas essential to Israel’s defense, including the western security area and the Jewish settlements, shall remain under Israeli rule.

The Golan

Based on the Likud-led government’s proposal, the 10th Knesset passed the law to extend Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration over the Golan Heights, thus establishing Israeli sovereignty over the area. The government will continue to strengthen Jewish settlement on the Golan.

Let’s let British Petroleum conduct an investigation of what it did wrong in the Gulf of Mexico.

One has to wonder what kind of fool would suggest this. But the Obama administration and Congress have agreed to let Israel investigate its own attack on a group of ships bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza on May 31^st — an attack that killed one American citizen and took control of an American ship and affected citizens from numerous countries.

The Associated Press report which most Americans saw, reads:

The White House backs Israel’s inquiry into its deadly raid last month on a flotilla trying to break a blockade against Gaza, saying the independent public commission is “an important step forward.” … Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says Israel’s panel can meet the standard of a “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation.”

The McClatchy News Service ran a similar article, titled “Israel plans impartial inquiry of its deadly attack on aid flotilla,” by Jerusalem-based reporter Shera Frenkel.

Not only are we getting a whitewash, it’s being packaged as an “independent” and “impartial” investigation.

If citizens of the 40 countries whose citizens were hijacked, beaten, or killed by Israel are content that at least “some kind” of investigation is being conducted, think again. A whitewash is under way. Whatever Israel’s own probe concludes – and Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised that it will exculpate Israel – the world must keep pressing for a credible, independent, international commission to investigate the flotilla attack.

With US approval, Israel appointed a commission to investigate itself composed of chairman Yaakov Tirtel, 75, a retired Israeli Supreme Court judge who still serves on a military appeals court; member Shabtai Rosen, 93, who worked on maritime law issues while at the UN; and member Amos Horev, 86, a retired major-general in the Israeli army, former president of the Technion, and an advocate for the Israeli defense industry.

Besides old guard members of Israel’s military-industrial complex, Israel appointed two “international observers” without voting rights. Neither of the men hastily chosen, a Canadian general who may have looked the other way on human rights abuses in Afghanistan and a Loyalist politician once associated with Ian Paisley and British colonial abuses in Ireland, is likely to stand up to much scrutiny.

Ken Watkin, the Canadian, was implicated in the Canadian Afghan detainee issue, in which several detainees arrested by Canadian Forces disappeared or were tortured following transfer to the Afghan National Police. According to a report in the Toronto Star, while acting as the Judge Advocate General, Watkin refused to answer questions when testifying in Canada’s House of Commons about whether he had been told to authorize the transfers or knew of the torture, and claimed attorney-client privilege in refusing to answer the House’s questions.

Irish Loyalist David Trimble, the second Israeli observer, is known for his association with Ian Paisley and British suppression of the Irish independence movement. Trimble is a neoconservative who supports interventionist foreign policy, as his membership in the Henry Jackson Society indicates. Trimble opposed the appointment of former US Senator George Mitchell as chairman of multi-party talks which resulted in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (GFA) of 1998. He recently founded the “Friends of Israel Initiative” to combat “international delegitimization” of the Jewish state. Trimble also has been quoted as saying, “One of the great curses of this world is the human rights industry.”

With an investigative body like this, don’t get your hopes up. My guess is the whitewash has probably already been written. Israel’s forthcoming report should be ignored and, instead, there must be a truly credible, independent, international investigation of the flotilla attack. As a recent Ha’aretz editorial concludes:

… both its puzzling membership and weak mandate – bodes ill for Israel. A committee whose makeup and authority are perceived as predetermined will be unable to satisfy international leaders and their constituencies abroad who demanded the inquiry in the first place. It would therefore have been better if the Turkel committee had never been born, sparing us the deceptive appearance of a real investigation.

J Street today applauded increased sanctions on Iran at the UN. An enrichment processing proposal brokered by Turkey and backed by Brazil, which had previously been acceptable to the United States, was rejected by the US in backing Israel’s demands for sanctions on Iran. A J Street press release supported the move:

J Street welcomes the passage of enhanced multilateral and broad-based sanctions on Iran at the United Nations Security Council today.

This vote would not have been possible without the tireless diplomatic efforts of the Obama Administration. We commend President Obama and his team for their effort and this step in the right direction, and urge them to continue employing a dual track approach – meaningful engagement plus multilateral sanctions – to convince Iran to change course.

Today, the Government of Iran hears a clear message from the international community that there are real consequences to continued obfuscation, delay, and intransigence over its nuclear program, as well as real benefits should they fully address international concerns.

We expect the Iranian regime to immediately make clear it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, to submit to international inspections, and to end its support for groups that use violence and terror against Israel. Such action will put Iran on the road to reintegration into the international community.

Other nations seem to be held to a different standard than Israel on nuclear weapons. J Street has not called on the UN for an end of Israel’s formal policy of nuclear ambiguity/obfuscation or asked it to rejoin the world community in respecting the international laws it continues to break. Such lopsided resolutions are guaranteed only to ratchet up the rhetoric from Teheran and make the Iranian regime more unpredictable.

These sanctions are particularly stupid because there was an opportunity to try a reprocessing scheme the US had once supported and to insist on monitoring access. Teheran had warned that the offer would be off the table if sanctions were imposed, and this now gives them a domestic popularity boost in standing up to the United States. There will also now be no monitoring, and Iran will have scored points for its home team.

The imposition of sanctions, however ineffective they are expected to be, coupled with the attack on the Mavi Marmara, is also a setback for NATO ally Turkey and a gain for Israel. A message certainly not lost on certain Middle Eastern and new European allies, these sanctions make it crystal clear that the United States is willing to betray NATO allies and friends when it comes to Israel. Stephen Walt calls it right when he cites Stephen Cook of the Council of Foreign Relations complaining about how Turkey needs to be “kept in its lane.” We can’t have just anybody running around being a regional power broker in the Middle East. There’s already a reserved seat.

This move is also exceptionally misguided because it further complicates the United States’ relations with other nations in the Middle East. But the president, the State Department, and apparently J Street, all continue to see the world as it was during the Bush administration. The US with the help of Israel will continue to try to project its power in the Middle East – at least for a few more years. Other regional players need not apply for the job.

To the editors:

Stuart Forman’s letter on the Gaza flotilla makes several statements which distort or put a spin on Israel’s war with Hamas, the blockade of Gaza, and attempts by protesters to break it.

Stuart writes that as a result of Israel’s evacuation of Gaza Israel became the target of 10,000 Qassam rockets. This is a distortion of the timeline. In 1996 Shimon Peres declared war on Hamas. In September 2005 Ariel Sharon withdrew Israeli settlers from Gaza. In January 2006 during Olmert’s term Hamas won popular elections in Gaza. In 2008 Israel and Hamas agreed on a cease-fire of hostilities which had dated back to the 90’s. During much of this time Gaza was under periodic bombardment by Israel and a number of Hamas leaders were assassinated, often with significant collateral damage. In December 2008 the cease fire ended and Israel attacked Gaza, killing more than a thousand civilians.

Thus, the hostility between Hamas and Israel long predated Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. The thousands of rocket attacks must be considered over decades, not just a few short years – and within a context of a war declared by Israel.

Stuart states that Israel provides 15,000 tons of humanitarian aid each week to Gaza. This aid is actually provided by humanitarian organizations like UNWRA or foreign NGOs and is funded by foreign nations like the US or the EU. The delivery is simply managed by COGAT, the office for Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories. And the UN estimates that the amount of aid is only one-quarter of what Gazans actually need.

Stuart suggests that Israel is only doing what is necessary to protect its citizens, but banned aid includes: biscuits and sweets, cardamom, cattle, cement, chickens, chocolate, coriander, cumin, donkeys, dried fruit, fabric, fishing nets, fishing rods, fresh meat, fruit preserves, ginger, glucose, goats, greenhouse planters, halva, heaters, horses, iron, jam, margarine, musical instruments, notebooks, nutmeg, pens and pencils, plaster, potato chips, razors, rope, ropes, sage, salt, seeds and nuts, seltzer, sewing machines, size A4 paper, tar, tarpaulins for shelter, toys, various containers, vinegar, and wood. Israel has also apparently estimated the minimum number of calories required by Gaza inhabitants, though it claims this data has never been used to restrict food.

Stuart portrays the Israeli government’s blockade as a reasonable effort to keep weapons out of terrorist hands and that humanitarian aid could have been delivered if only the protesters had first docked in Ashdod. But as we see from the list above, Israel’s intent goes well beyond protection, to punitively crippling the Gaza economy and depriving its inhabitants for voting for Hamas in 2006. The flotilla organizers’ intent was clearly to point out this collective punishment by an act of civil disobedience.

Israel still has stores of confiscated materials that have never been delivered to Gaza from eight previous attempts to break the blockade. Thus, Stuart’s repetition of promises by the Israeli Foreign Ministry are simply not to be believed. In addition, by failing to deliver humanitarian aid and impounding it, as it has done with all flotilla shipments, Israel is violating any number of international laws.

While Gazans may have originally voted for the political wing of Hamas, the Israeli blockade has only entrenched the military wing. Israel is making the same mistake it made in 2002 in the West Bank when it decided it didn’t like the Palestinian Authority and bombed the government compound in Ramallah. The more Israel beats and bombs and deprives Palestinians, the more radicalized they will become.

But the deprivations of Gazans are not all to be laid at the feet of Israel. Egypt has been complicit in the boycott by closing its Rafah crossing into Gaza. Hamas itself has diverted aid that might have gone to the Fatah faction. Assisting Israel in its punitive measures, a Democratic congress actually cut US aid to Gaza in March 2009. There is plenty of blame to go around. But now that the world knows how dire the situation in Gaza is, it’s time to fix it.

not printed

Today, 78 miles in international waters, Israel Defense Forces boarded a small flotilla of six ships bound for Gaza with food, building materials, medical equipment, books, and toys – killing 19 on board with live ammunition, according to Israel’s Channel 10 and the BBC. Most of the deaths occurred on the Mavi Mamara, a Turkish ship.

The “Freedom Flotilla” consisting of 700 people from 40 different countries, including many Americans, a Nobel Peace laureate, European parliamentarians, and non-violent peace organizations, was again attempting to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza. In the past, many of the same organizations and individuals found similar ships boarded, contents inspected, passengers brought to Israeli jail, then deported. This time, Israel displayed the same callous disregard for the lives of Western civilians that it has previously shown toward Arabs.

Since Israel’s siege of Gaza in 2008, which killed thousands of civilians, Israel has maintained a clampdown on imports and exports in Gaza – punishing Gazans collectively for supporting the political wing of Hamas in elections – and creating hardships which have predictably increased support for the military wing of Hamas. Despite initial promises to investigate the situation in Gaza, such as Senator John Kerry’s visit shortly after the siege, the United States has turned a blind eye to the resulting hunger, homelessness, poverty, and unemployment in Gaza. Israel has been permitted to impose capricious bans on imports such as pasta and spices and on exports such as fish and Gazans have had to rely on a network of tunnels to survive. Israel’s actions are in violation of numerous human rights principles and international law. The flotilla was intended to raise awareness of this and the hopelessness of life in Gaza.

The flotilla attack comes at a time when Israel’s rightwing government has clamped down on civil liberties, barred foreign critics from entering Israel or the West Bank, arrested journalists, banned NGOs, placed numerous non-violent Palestinian leaders in prison without laying charges, proposed stripping some of its own citizens of their citizenship, and stepped up harassment of peace organizations.

Despite Israel’s recent entry into the OECD – a club for the world’s wealthiest nations – and despite our own financial difficulties – the United States continues to pamper Israel with $3 to $5 billion a year in military aid, loans, military and energy development projects, and occasional splurges like last week’s “Iron Dome” boondoggle which gave one of Israel’s state-owned military industries, Rafael Systems, $205 million for a missile shield system that in 2008 was judged to be useless against Qassams.

It is high time to pull the plug on aid to Israel and to make that nation accountable for its attacks on American citizens. It has long been clear that Israel has used US aid to finance racist settlement programs, build separation walls, private roads for settlers, maintain checkpoints, and to inflict casualties on civilians in the West Bank, Lebanon, and Gaza. Now this military aid is being used against our own citizens.

In the long run, the leverage this will apply on Israel will actually benefit it. Unless the United States stops asking “pretty please” and applies meaningful pressure on Israel to coexist with a Palestinian state, its 62 year occupation will continue until the same fate befalls Palestinians as American Indians – where they live in isolated reservations within Greater Israel. When that happens, Israel will be in precisely the same position that white South Africans found themselves. It will be the end of either Israeli democracy or a Jewish state.

This was published in the Standard Times on June 3, 2010
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/20100603/opinion/6030329