Gaza or Paradise!

Looking back on the Israeli boarding of the Turkish-flagged ship Marmara on May 31 in which soldiers were injured (some seriously), nine Turks were killed and Israel was condemned around the world, some questions persist:

1. Why weren't the militants aboard the Marmara armed with guns?
Everyone aboard knew that the ship was running an Israeli blockade, and was likely to be boarded by soldiers. Yet the defenders of the vessel used nothing more lethal than sticks and knives; you would find more firepower in the typical Milwaukee bar any Saturday night than on the Marmara. Why didn't the militants pick up firearms in Cyprus before sailing?
One possibility is that the group sponsoring the flotilla, the so-called Humanitarian Relief Foundation ( or IHH, the Turkish acronym) banned firearms because enforcing the blockade on an unarmed ship would maximize the outrage aimed at Israel . It is also possible that the men who attacked the Israeli commandos sought martyrdom (shahida) by dying in jihad against Israel. They were either going to Gaza or Paradise, and the most fanatic Muslims prefer the latter destination. Perhaps they learned that one can harm Israel more by provoking its defenders to slaughter unarmed people than by killing Israelis with bombs or bullets. In the court of world sentiment, the former activity elicits sympathy for the Arab cause, while the latter elicits sympathy for Israel.

2. What were IDF leaders thinking?
On Jan. 3, 2002, IDF ships captured the Karinne A, a vessel loaded with arms for the Palestine Authority, without firing a single shot. Faced with overwhelming force and taken by surprise, the crew surrendered without resistance. There were no casualties, and no international repercussions.
This time the IDF chose to board the Marmara from a helicopter. If any man on deck were armed with so much as a rifle, he could have picked-off the soldiers one-by-one as they descended; worse yet, a single rocket fired from the deck could have destroyed the helicopter and killed everyone on it. By the grace of God, no one on the ship had any of these weapons, so the IDF was spared a massacre. But the IDF strategy was based upon the presumption of no resistance at all, and that was a mistake that could have had tragic consequences.
When the US blockaded Cuba in October, 1962, American naval commanders were determined to disable any Soviet ship that crossed the blockade line by firing a single shot into its rudder underwater. Blockading ships have also fired warning shots over the bow of any vessel trying to run the blockade, and then sinking any that were not deterred. Israel could have easily sunk the Marmara without endangering its own soldiers at all, but chose the far more risky course of boarding it from a helicopter. I have yet to hear any nation praise the Jewish state for showing admirable restraint by not firing on the Marmara, and thereby endangering its own soldiers rather than the passengers and crew of the hostile vessel. Don't hold your breath.

3. Has Turkey gone Islamic?
Turkey, the first Muslim nation to recognize Israel, has cancelled joint military exercises with the Jewish state and withdrawn its ambassador. The decision of the Turkish government to allow the IHH Flotilla to sail from the Turkish ports on Cyprus precipitated the entire crisis, which Ankara now blames entirely on Israel.
As a member of NATO, Turkey is aligned with the United States. Yet Ankara refused to allow American and allied forces to use Turkish territory for launching the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Today Turkey is governed by the Islamic Justice and Development Party, which has ties to IHH, which in turn has ties to Al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists . Although Turkey had been hosting talks between Israel and Syria, its support of the pro-Hamas blockade runners has negated its role as a neutral party to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Unfortunately, Turkey today must be viewed as in the camp of Iran, Syria , Hezbollah and Hamas. (1) This is a serious loss for both Israel and the United States, whose influence in Ankara is low and falling.
The angry mobs in Istanbul chanting hate-Israel slogans indicate that the policies of Prime Minister Recip Erdogan are popular in the Turkish street. But how do they sit with Turkey's military leaders? It was a military commander named Mustapha Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938) that seized power in 1923 and turned the nation into a secular pro-western country. His successors have deposed several elected governments in an effort to prevent the nation from sliding into an Iran-style Islamic republic. If Ergodan over-plays his hand and makes a total break with the US and NATO, he risks another military takeover.

As this is written, plans are underway for another Gaza-bound flotilla, and diplomats are working to prevent another lethal confrontation. Israel has proposed that an international naval force inspect future aid ships bound for Gaza, and allow non-military cargoes to proceed, but Hamas insists that "the aid must arrive complete." (2) Stay tuned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Benny Avni in the NY Post, June 2, 2010.

(2) NY Times, June 4, 2010.

Guardians in Gaza

"(Israel's invasion of Gaza in 2008) was against Palestine, against Judaism, against the Jewish people and against humanity."
Rabbi Dovid Feldman of New York, speaking in Gaza, December 30, 2009 (1)

Rabbi Feldman and three other members of the tiny Neturei Karta (NK) movement participated in an international group of about 100 who joined around 500 Gaza Arabs in demonstrating against the Israeli partial blockade of Gaza. NK, like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, is totally opposed to the existence of the State of Israel, so Rabbi Feldman and his colleagues apparently were comfortable in collaborating with those who have fired thousands of rockets at Sderot and other Israeli cities.

Who are these guys, and what do they want?

The Neturei Karta (Aramaic for "Guardians of the City" of Jerusalem) began as a movement among Hungarian and Lithuanian Jews who settled in the Mea Shearim (100 Gates) area of Jerusalem during the 19th Century(2). They were happy to live as a tolerated small minority, first under the rule of Muslim Turks, and subsequently under the British. They steadfastly opposed the idea of establishing a Jewish state in the Land of Israel before the coming of Moshiach (Messiah) as a violation of the post-Exile covenant between God and Jewish people (3). NK joined with Satmar chasidim and Agudas Israel in trying to prevent the partition of the Palestine Mandate by the United Nations in 1947.

After the State was established in 1948, Agudas Israel accepted it and participated in the Knesset. But NK and Satmar refused to support the State of Israel in any way, and have isolated themselves from it to the extent possible. While most other orthodox Jews in the country became Israeli patriots, NK established contacts with PLO; one rabbi even served in Yassir Arafat's cabinet. NK has splintered into a number of factions, including some that have settled in Brooklyn and Monsey, New York.

Among the most radical of NK activists is Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss of Monsey, New York, who spoke at the Holocaust revisionist conference in Tehran in 2006. Although insisting that the Holocaust was an indisputable historical fact (which some other participants denied), he asserted that it should never be "used as a tool to oppress other people." Weiss supported the goal of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the State of Israel be dismantled, albeit by peaceful means., and replaced by a Palestinian state.

Like the rejectionist Arab factions, Neturei Karta longs to turn back the clock to 1918, when Jews lived in Jerusalem as a tolerated minority in a Muslim-run country. To this end they are willing to align themselves with the enemies of Israel, who use them for anti-Israel propaganda. The media are happy to publicize their activities and statements, despite their tiny numbers and lack of support among other orthodox Jews.

What the NK rabbis do not realize is that the world of 1917 has vanished forever; if the Arabs ever did take over in Jerusalem (God forbid!), there would be no Jews in Mea Shearim, or anywhere else in the Land of Israel. Their Arab friends would have no further use for them, and they would be driven out or killed. Only the despised State of Israel defends their ability to live in the Holy Land.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 31, 2009, page 5A.

(2) Wikipedia.

(3) Talmud: Kesubos 111A.

Gaza Postwar

"...There is nothing 'right' about punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them."
J Street Statement

"A majority of Gaza residents believe in the (Hamas) path."
Tom Segev, Ha'aretz , Jan. 5, 2009

If Mr Segev is right, and the results of the 2005 Palestinian election support his contention, the Hamas movement is the true voice of the people of Gaza. Therefore those who are shooting rockets into Israel at the behest of Hamas are not extremists among Palestinians, but in fact are implementing the will of the people. I wish that Segev could take a walk down J Street and point this out to his fellow Jews.

No one doubts that Israel will prevail over Hamas in the battle for Gaza, probably within the next two weeks. What is not clear is what Israeli forces will leave behind after the battle.

President George W Bush, an acolyte of Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, has successfully advocated self-determination and democracy for the Arabs, both Iraqi and Palestinian. The trouble is that in 2005 the vast majority of Gazans (plus substantial numbers in the West Bank) freely chose the party, Hamas, that openly demands war with Israel. Given another chance to vote, I am confident that the Gazans would pick Hamas again. On this, I accept Tom Segev's view over that of J Street.

I suspect that many Israeli leaders are hoping to re-establish Fatah control over Gaza after this war, and that key PA leaders are also seeking the same outcome. The trouble is that Fatah can no more control Gaza in 2009 than in could in 2007, especially if it took an Israeli invasion (abetted by massive bombing) to bring Fatah back to power there.

What is left is a painful choice between endless military occupation (and endless intifada violence against Israeli soldiers) and a resumption of Hamas rule accompanied by rocket-fire against all of southern Israel. Even the imposition of European, Arab or other foreign forces in Gaza is not a viable alternative, since Hamas will fight them too, and will probably wear down the patience of any country that might send them. Since Hamas is a danger only to Israel, only Israel will have the persistence to stay.

Israel will be under enormous pressure from the UN and major world powers to withdraw from Gaza, but I hope that the Jewish state can withstand this pressure. Hamas must not only be disarmed now, but must stay disarmed if Israel is to live in peace.

If any readers have a better alternative than indefinite occupation, please present it as a note to this posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to Gaza

"Long range rockets, anti-aircraft, and anti-tank missiles were brought into Gaza."
Yuval Diskin, head of Israeli Security Service (Shin Bet)
As quoted in the Associated Press, Feb. 4, 2008

Hamas, and the terrorist-groups allied with the movement (Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, etc.) have a consistent record of using whatever weapons they have against Israel. The measures Israel has used so far in trying to stop rocket attacks from Gaza ( brief military incursions and closing the border ) have not been successful. If the Government of Israel is adamant about preventing these new, more powerful weapons, from being launched into Israel, the only remaining option is for the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) to re-occupy the part of Gaza from which the attacks have been launched.

When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon abandoned Gaza to the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 2005, there was an opportunity for the PA to show that it could maintain a peaceful border with Israel. Unfortunately, the PA did nothing to stop rocket attacks into Israel during the period that it governed Gaza; since Hamas took over the attacks have intensified. Each rocket is a lethal weapon, and launching them is an act of war, which no sovereign nation would tolerate .

The current crisis, created by the destruction of the Gaza-Egypt border by Hamas in late January, has come in the midst of President Bush's efforts to restart peace talks between Israel and the PA leadership in Ramallah. The negotiations are expected to deal with the fate of Gaza, even though the PA no longer controls the Strip.

The time has come to end the "legal fiction" of a single Palestinian state consisting of Gaza and the West Bank . Although both territories were parts of larger domains (the Ottoman Empire and the Palestine Mandate), and both were governed by Israel from 1967 through 2005 (1), they have never formed a nation.

The concept of a nation whose territory lies on opposite sides of another country was tried before: remember East Pakistan and West Pakistan? In 1971 East Pakistan broke away to form Bangladesh, and India prevented Pakistani armed forces from reclaiming the region. For the same reason, Fatah was unable to prevent the Hamas takeover in Gaza last year.

Israel should now refuse to negotiate with PA on the future of Gaza. Instead, the Olmert government should issue an ultimatum to Hamas: stop the rockets or we will come in and stop them. If the rockets keep coming (as they probably will), IDF should re-occupy the part of Gaza closest to Israeli cities and set-up a new security fence there. If that does not stop the rocket-fire, unleash IDF to crush the Hamas regime completely and impose martial law in the entire Strip. The Gazans had their chance to enjoy the blessings of independence and democracy, and they blew it by attacking Israel. Now let them experience the consequences of their choices.

Of course, the United States will object to this tactic. Israel should remind President Bush of his declaration (2) that "Those who harbor terrorists will share their fate." If the Taliban regime deserved destruction in 2001, the Hamas regime deserves it now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The Palestine Authority, established in 1993, also exercised limited power in both Gaza and the West Bank, but until August, 2005, the IDF maintained a military presence in Gaza.

(2) Address to Congress September, 2001.

Abbas: The New "Dr No?"

"Palestinian violence could make it difficult for Abbas
to concentrate on talks with Israel."
Associated Press, January 1, 2008

Fighting in Gaza between Fatah and Hamas forces this week has killed four Arabs and wounded another 60. Next week President George W Bush is scheduled to visit the area to talk-up his Annapolis initiative for re-starting negotiations about establishing a Palestinian state. I can save him the energy (both personal and jet-fuel) by informing him right now that the peace-talks are already doomed, and there will be no Palestinian state during his term of office.

A dispute between parties I will call A and B can be settled only if both parties view a settlement as an improvement over the current situation. The classic case is that of a labor strike: the workers will be better off earning a paycheck , and the employer will be better off if the firm is again producing goods for the market. But what if one party, say A, is actually better off without a settlement?

One possibility is that A will refuse to negotiate at all. This is the position of Hamas, which openly rejects any settlement with party B: Israel. But what if A seeks favorable treatment from a third party C, which is pushing for a settlement to the dispute? Then A will likely enter negotiations to impress C, but constantly make outrageous demands which B is certain to reject, thus creating the impression that it is really B that is wrecking the negotiations.

In 2000 C stood for Clinton, who (like George W Bush) spent his final year in the presidency trying to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute. Then A stood for Arafat, who rejected a very generous offer to establish a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and about 97% of the West Bank, including limited sovereignty in Jerusalem. But Arafat demanded the Right of Return (of Arab refugees to Israel), a known deal-killer, and walked out when it was refused. Arafat returned to the comfortable scenario of "armed struggle" (terrorism) against Israel, which he apparently preferred to a settlement that would have created a Palestinian state in his lifetime,

Mahmoud Abbas (the new A), a technocrat with none of Yasser Arafat's popularity or ability to dominate all Palestinian factions, is now called upon to reach the kind of settlement that his predecessor rejected nearly eight years ago. Unlike Arafat, Abbas is contending with a challenge from the militant Hamas movement that controls Gaza and also threatens Fatah rule in the West Bank.

The only force in the world that could have stopped Hamas from seizing control of Gaza in 2006 was the Israeli Army. Since all Jews had been removed from Gaza by then, Israel did not "have a dog in that fight" and did nothing. (1)

Fatah is known to be stronger in the West Bank than it was in Gaza, but the prospect of a Hamas revolt in the former area would still be a nightmare for Abbas and his followers. Right now that is impossible because the Israeli Army would crush Hamas. But if Israel withdrew from the West Bank and recognized an independent Palestinian state there, Abbas and Fatah would be on their own. Defeat by Hamas would not only cost these men their jobs, but also their lives! In contrast, Israeli occupation, with all the humiliating checkpoints, does not look so bad, after all.

The mortal combat in Gaza this past week underscores the need for Israel to remain in control of the West Bank for the foreseeable future: not only for the protection of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers living there, but also for the sake of Fatah and Abbas. Paradoxically, a movement launched to destroy Israel (in 1964) now depends upon Israel for its own survival. Stranger things have happened, especially in the Middle East.

And so, Mr President, there will be long and laborious negotiations, but no settlement and no Palestinian state any time soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Constant rocket attacks from Gaza have been met with Israeli airstrikes and brief incursions into northern Gaza. Apparently,the present Government of Israel does not consider the rockets a serious enough threat to warrant re-occupation of the areas from which they are launched.

Powering Hamas

"Attorney General Mazuz said the plan to reduce power to Gaza needed further scrutiny because of the possible impact on the population."
Reuters, Oct. 29, 2007

President George W Bush last week accused Iran of assisting terrorism by supplying Hamas and Hezbullah, known terrorist organizations. But Hamas gets its electricity and fuel, not from Iran, but from Israel! Without these sources of power, Hamas could not function as a terrorist group. By that token, Israel could be justly accused of facilitating terrorism against itself by supplying energy to Gaza, the base of Hamas.

Although nominally part of the Palestine Authority, Gaza has been effectively dominated by Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Organization, since June of 2007. Unlike Fatah, Hamas openly vows to destroy Israel. Moreover, rockets are fired from northern Gaza into Israel every day, causing terror, damage, injuries, and even death. Each rocket attack is an act of war. Although Hamas soldiers are not firing these rockets, Hamas does nothing to stop those who do.

The government of any territory is responsible for attacks launched from its land, so Hamas bears full responsibility for the rocket attacks, no matter what group actually fires them. Although Israel has periodically bombed launching sites and conducted military operations in northern Gaza to kill or capture the attackers, until now the Jewish State has continued to supply fuel and electricity to Gaza. It is hard to recall any other country that has continued to supply an entity with which it is at war.

The European Union (EU) has warned Israel against imposing "collective punishment" on Gazans (Reuters). The trouble is that collective punishment is the only kind of response that has any chance of pressuring Hamas to halt the rockets. What would any EU country do if it were assaulted by rockets across its border?

Life in Gaza is pretty miserable, and lack of electricity will make it a lot more miserable. But if the people are miserable enough, they just may convince their leaders to keep the peace with Israel. If the Government of Israel is serious about pacifying the Gaza border, it should cut off all electricity and fuel until the attacks stop for good.