By Ernest Corea
The best that can be hoped for in response to Israel's recent act of "banditry and piracy" is that it will stiffen the resolve of the international community to secure the end of Israel's barbaric blockade of Gaza.
The worst is that despite its act of perfidy, Israel's protectors will surround it with defensive rhetoric, enabling it to remain unscathed by what is considered a grave breach of international law – and be free to prepare for a repeat performance, perhaps against another ship that is moving in the direction of Gaza with humanitarian supplies at the time of writing.
The "Rachel Corrie" is named after an American who was run over and killed by an IDF bulldozer when she tried to prevent it from demolishing the home of a Palestinian in Gaza. That was in 2003.
Fifteen opponents of the Gaza blockade are on the Rachel Corrie which is en route to Gaza carrying much needed supplies. An un-named member of the IDF has been quoted in the U.S. media as saying that his unit was ready to "block" the ship. In other words, more of the despicable same.
There will be much more of the same if the international community does not act swiftly and effectively. Banditry can be habit-forming.
DEBUNKED
Israel's Defence Forces (IDF), operating in international waters in the early hours of Monday, May 31, engaged a small flotilla of ships whose occupants were on a humanitarian mission to relieve the inhabitants of the Gaza strip suffering deprivation induced by Israel’s blockage against them.
The commando-led attack resulted in deaths and injuries, and halted the mission. Israel impounded the ships, and detained members of the mission. They are said to include a substantial number of NGO members from Turkey, as well as an international mix of humanitarian activists, parliamentarians, and former diplomats.
Whether representatives of the detainees' governments will be allowed customary consular access to them or whether they will be held incommunicado as punishment for challenging the IDF is not known.
Commenting at the UN Security Council where the attack and the consequent deaths were debated, Israeli representative Daniel Carmon dismissed the notion that the targeted flotilla was benign. Although the flotilla was portrayed in the media as a humanitarian mission, he said, it was anything but.
If the mission was truly humanitarian, he insisted, its organizers would have accepted weeks ago Israel's offer to transfer the aid brought on the flotilla through an Israeli port and through the established Israeli procedures (when "banned" items would be discarded). Much material and merchandise was entering Gaza daily through those mechanisms. "I would like to stress there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza," he said.
Carmon's optimistic indifference to a humanitarian crisis was debunked in advance by UN Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Oscar Fernandez-Taranco who briefed Security Council members on the incident itself, its context, and its aftermath.
A UN news release reports that Fernandez-Taranco said the Memorial Day Massacre would have been avoided if repeated calls on Israel to end the counterproductive and unacceptable (others called it illegal) blockade of Gaza had been heeded. He explained the extent to which the needs of Gaza’s civilian population were not met, and emphasized the case for ending the blockade.
He reminded council members that Special Coordinator Robert Serry had briefed the council in detail as recently as on May 18 about the serious humanitarian, human rights and socio-economic conditions facing the civilian population in Gaza, and had made clear the range of interventions, from water and sanitation to education, to health, to the commercial sector, which were urgent to meet existing needs.
"The only way forward for Gaza is a different and more positive strategy that implements Security Council resolution 1860 (2009)" which sought an end to the blockade. "It is now more vital than ever that this be put into effect," he urged.
OUTRAGE
The distance between the claim of crisis-free life in Gaza and the reality of deprivation appeared to be as far as the eyes could see.
The attempt to justify the Israel assault did not, however, result in the required suspension of disbelief. The IDF action provoked angry condemnation and protests at the Security Council and elsewhere, with only the U.S. representative at the UN showing some signs of a desire to mollify the Israeli Establishment.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon speaking from Kampala said he was "shocked" by the killings and injuries of people on the boats and condemned the violence. He called for a full investigation to determine exactly how the bloodshed had occurred. He stressed the need for Israel to provide a full explanation, as a matter of urgency.
Representative after representative at the UN erupted in outrage and poured contempt on the IDF's display of murder and mayhem.
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu of Turkey described the attack as "murder conducted by a State. It has no excuses, no justification whatsoever. Today, we observed, through live coverage, an act of barbarism, where provision of humanitarian aid has been punished through aggression on the high seas….. Today, many humanitarian aid workers went back in body bags. Israel has blood on its hands."
China's representative Yang Tao said his country had also been shocked by the Israeli attack on a multinational convoy carrying humanitarian aid. He urged Israel to immediately and fully implement resolution 1860 (2009) and fully open the borders and lift the blockade.
VIOLATION
Gerard Araud of France said it appeared that there had been an unjustifiable and disproportionate use of force, which his country condemned. He said that full light should be shed through an in-depth investigation, which must be independent, credible and in line with international standards, and conducted immediately.
The incident was a reminder, he added, of the need to re-establish humanitarian access to Gaza under resolution 1860 (2009), and France called for a lifting of the unsustainable and illegal Gaza blockade.
Alexander Pinking of the Russian Federation expressed regret at the deaths which had occurred. The act was a gross violation of the norms of international law. It illustrated the need for a prompt cessation of the blockade against Gaza.
Alejandro Wolff for the U.S. regretted the tragic loss of life and injury. He expected a credible and transparent investigation.
He went on to imply that the intended beneficiaries of the humanitarian aid were somehow to blame. "Hamas's interference had complicated humanitarian efforts in Gaza, and it had undermined security and prosperity for all Palestinians," he said.
BLOCKADE
Other expressions of outrage, sorrow, and a recommitment to ending the Gaza blockade were heard at the UN, at the UN Human Rights Council, in the U.S. and in Israel where former Knesset member Uri Avnery said:
"Only a crazy government that has lost all restraint and all connection to reality could do something like that -- consider ships carrying humanitarian aid and peace activists from around the world as an enemy and send massive military force to international waters to attack them, shoot and kill."
In Washington DC, the J Street group which describes itself as "pro-Israel, pro-peace" said: "This shocking outcome of an effort to bring humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza is in part a consequence of the ongoing, counterproductive Israeli blockade of Gaza. "J Street has been and continues to be opposed to the blockade -- believing that there are better ways to ensure Israel's security and to prevent weapons smuggling than a complete closure of the Gaza Strip.”
And so on it goes.
EXCESSIVE
Meanwhile, the Presidential Statement issued on behalf of the entire Security Council urged Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.
The Statement took note of the Secretary-General’s views on the need to have a full investigation into the incident and it called for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.
Stressing that the situation in Gaza was not sustainable, the Council re-emphasized the importance of the full implementation of resolutions 1850 (2008) and 1860 (2009).
In that context, it reiterated its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stressed the need for the sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza, as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza. The Council also expressed support for Palestine-Israel proximity talks.
At the Human Rights Council, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights Kyung Wha Kang, speaking on behalf of the High Commissioner, conveyed and echoed the High Commissioner's profound regrets over the loss of life and injuries resulting from the Israeli attack. The Office of the High Commissioner was shocked that humanitarian aid would be met with such violence, and condemned what appeared to be a disproportionate use of force.
OBLIGATION
The adoption of a Presidential Statement at the Security Council (where it is read out by the president) is seen as a lesser reaction than adoption of a resolution. There is a possibility, however, that any resolution which went even as far as the statement went -- and many felt it did not go far enough -- would have received an American veto, ending further consideration of the attack.
Thus, the Statement retains the Council's focus on the IDF action, while at the same time saving the Obama Administration from having to grapple with a painful decision: to veto or not to veto.
At least in recognition of that "saving grace" the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to be resolute and unambiguous in confronting Israel's challenge to the international community.
Within its own councils, if nowhere else, the U.S. has to acknowledge that the Israeli Establishment, left to itself, makes its own rules and plays by them.
The Goldstone Report on Israeli-Palestine warfare was fair and balanced about how both parties contravened the rules of war, and disregarded their human rights obligations. The report determined, however, that the people of Gaza suffered most, as a result of Israel's "intention to inflict collective punishment" on them. Such punishment included a blockade that caused "progressive isolation and deprivation".
The Israeli Establishment pulled off an effective public relations campaign against the report and the U.S. Government recoiled from subjecting Israelis to the principle of accountability. If, instead, both parties had been brought to account then, the world might not be mourning the Memorial Day Massacre now.
A former Secretary of State when pressed as to why the U.S. Government did not impose its views on the Israel Establishment replied that clients don't always do as they are told. They can be made to act reasonably, rationally, and lawfully, however, if a powerful patron actually uses the levers of power. Another Secretary of State, James Baker, is credited with having done just that and he is surely available for consultations.
The temptation will be great for foreign policy mandarins, both at the White House and at the State Department, to allow proceedings at the UN and elsewhere to take their course, allow the dust to settle, forget about accountability, and then push for more proximity talks.
The fetid odor of deception has been let loose by the IDF action. Until that is completely cleared, will principals in the talks be able to breathe the clean air of collaboration? – GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
|
