Buddy wrote this. The beginning just explains why he doesn't support Israel blindely. Keep reading on it gets pretty dope.
Jonathan Lerner: A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE FLOTILLA ISSUE
I would like to take this opportunity to relay my thoughts on the current Flotilla issue involving Israel in what I believe to be a well thought-out and practical approach.
I wish to begin by stating that I am a secular Jew and my support for Israel is not reliant on any form of purely religious doctrine which would be subject to many standard forms of logical refutation and/or reliant on circular arguments. Rather, my support for Israel is both historically based and practical in nature. I base my support for the state of Israel on the same criteria I would any other: pragmatic considerations of policy and ideological foundation.
My long-term and general support for Israel is based off of numerous facts regarding its nature which are perhaps not widely acknowledged or known:
- Israel is the only true and consistent secular democracy in the Middle East.
- Israel is a major bastion of women's rights having had a female head of state long before most 'modern' nations and obviously before the United States.
- Israel is also a bastion of homosexual rights allowing gays to serve openly in the military since the mid-1990's and recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other countries, such as Canada. Israel also allows for gay adoption and provides extensive support for the gay community. Indeed, when orthodox persons threatened violence at a pride parade a few years ago, Israeli authorities provided so much security for the parade that there were more police than participants - all to ensure the right of the parade attendees.
- Israel is a leader in technological advancement and does not hinder its progress based on religious doctrine. Indeed, Israel has more medical breakthroughs per capita than any other country on Earth. It is also has the greatest number of foreign (non-US) companies listed on the NASDAQ.
- Israel is a leader in environmental policy with companies which have provided hybrid energy alternatives since the 80s and is the ONLY nation in the world to enter the 21st century with a net gain in trees.
- Israel is a leader in humanitarian aid in Africa and around the world.
For these reasons and others I am a strong supporter of Israel's existence and security. This does not mean, however, that I am a 'blind' supporter, such as those who follow a religious doctrine without any consideration for its merits. My support of Israel's individual actions are on a case-by-case basis and I am fully prepared and even happy to admit her failures. Like any other nation, Israel is capable of making mistakes. I am fully prepared to recognized these. What is important to note is that Israel has a fully secular and impartial judicial system which oversees its government and which routinely inspects the country's actions. I also believe that Israel is held to a double standard which no other country faces.
That being said, i would like to move on to the next topic which is...
THE BLOCKADE OF GAZA:
The blockade of Gaza is neither enjoyable nor positive for Israel. Indeed, it costs the country millions of dollars every year (which could otherwise be spent on social services, etc.) and incalculable damage to its international reputation. Rather, the blockage is one of unfortunate necessity and prudence.
It is an approximately 3-year old policy of Israel to maintain a blockade of Gaza and it is done due to the smuggling of numerous arms into the territory for Hamas. Hamas is an entity with much blood on its hands; not just of Israelis but of citizens of many countries including Canada, the United States, etc. Indeed, it is listed as a terrorist entity by Canada, the US, the entire EU, Japan, Australia, and many many others. The smuggling of weaponry and military equipment from rocket launchers, to AK-47s, to night-vision goggles prompted the blockade, which has been successful in reducing the armaments of Hamas (although much weaponry is still smuggled-in by Iran and Syria through a network of complex tunnels).
However, it is extremely important to note that, despite what may be said in biased media reports, the blockade is NOT an all-out ban on aid/goods in and out of Gaza. Rather, the blockade is a method of screening goods to make sure no military hardware/weaponry is being smuggled in. Indeed, enough aid is provided by Israel to Gaza every year to equal 1 ton for every man, woman and child in the territory. In fact, the 'aid' aboard the flotilla was but a small portion of what flows into Gaza every single WEEK.
Shipping aid into Gaza is not very difficult; Israel is very accomodating. Many organizations, whether they be the UN, Oxfam, the Red Cross, Save the Children, Amnesty International, etc. constantly ship wares into the territory. What the blockade entails is that shipments by sea must stop in a nearby Israeli port for screening before being transferred to Gaza. Indeed, this is the exact deal which was offered to those operating the flotilla: dock in Israel, have the goods of the ship inspected for weaponry and then all of the aid will be delivered to Gaza free of charge. But those in command of the flotilla refused to dock in Israel and have their cargo inspected. Makes you wonder how serious they could have been about delivering this aid?
And that leads to the next topic:
THE FLOTILLA:
I do not believe that the Flotilla was a true humanitarian mission. If the activists aboard truly wanted their aid delivered there were a multitude of methods by which it could have been delivered in a much faster and more cost-effective manner, including using a third-party NGO or even taking Israel up on its offer to ship the aid for free from the nearby port. Taking any of these avenues would have allowed the aid to reach Gaza much more quickly and also saved plenty of money which could have been spent on future shipments. Indeed, even after the incident at sea Israel shipped the aid into Gaza after it was properly inspected.
Rather, the Flotilla was/is an incredibly smart and intricate
PR stunt designed to grab the attention and sympathy of the world. It left Israel in a catch-22 situation and led to an international incident. Some may say that I am being insensitive by saying this, since people died in this stunt. While the loss of life is highly unfortunate and deeply regrettable it does not change the facts or make the motives of those in charge of the Flotilla any less cynical. While I am sure that there were genuinely concerned and mislead people aboard those boats, the organizers of the Flotilla and the majority of its passengers were fully aware of their actions and what they were attempting.
It is worth noting that these were supposed to be cargo ships which should require only a small number of passengers to manage the vessels; the majority of loading and unloading of cargo would be fully assisted on shore. Yet, around 700 passengers were onboard. Many of them brought no identification (I wonder why) and carried thousands of dollars in cash. They also brought with them the equipment for molotov cocktails, large military knives, stun grenades, batons and other weaponry. These seems highly strange for 'humanitarians' to carry. I have never heard of any Red Cross, Oxfam or other workers bringing such items with them when delivering their cargo.
The video evidence is also incredibly clear: before the Israeli soldiers even boarded the ship (when they were merely pulled-up beside it) soldiers were being hit with stun grenades, metal chains and sharp objects. Once the soldiers entered the ship they were immediately attacked with knives, batons, etc. Video shows the direct stabbing of soldiers. Others grabbed the pistols of the soldiers and began shooting. Now if I was here on Canadian soil and I was in a gathering of some kind and my friends were beating and stabbing police officers and I grabbed a gun from the holster of an officer I would have to be a complete and utter moron to expect not to be shot. Not only that but the police officer who acted in that way would probably be praised for his heroism and given a promotion. But if an Israeli soldier or police officer does the same they are called murderers.
A similar double standard is held to the intervention itself. If six ships were headed for Canada's coast and there was no way of verifying what was on board, and these ships repeatedly refused to have their contents screened through the standard procedures, we as Canadians would not only expect but want the Canadian Forces and RCMP to intercept the vessels.
Instead, Israel is labeled an aggressor. But what kind of aggressor would arm its soldiers with paintball guns. Not even rubber bullets! The only live rounds carried by the soldiers were in holstered pistols ordered to be used as a last resort. This does not seem particularly aggressive to me. What is aggressive are the actions and words of the activists. Evidence shows them shouting "Itbach el Yahud" (slaughter the Jews). But it is very rare for this footage to make its way onto the national news. Instead, we are inundated with interviews of biased sources, such as the activists themselves, without the actual video evidence from the security cameras aboard the ship(s).
There are some who hide behind the fact that Israel boarded the ship in International waters. It is true that the media storm would have been less intense had Israel waited for them to enter Israeli waters. But the details and the motives of the Flotilla would not have been altered by these few kilometers. The same ships with the same people would have been there and they made it immensely clear of their intensions to cross that border. In fact, many cases of International Law are clear that boarding a vessel intending to break a blockade is acceptable even in international waters, provided the motives are clear. Those who harp on the location of the incident are merely distracting from the real issues and are mincing words in a desperate attempt to justify the actions of the activists.
Those detained by Israel were all released within 72hrs (even those who attacked the soldiers and/or had ties to terrorist entities). Anyone requiring medical attention received it free of charge. Aid was sent straight to Gaza.
I would like to now discuss a similar topic:
HAMAS AND THE IHH:
I will begin with a brief discussion of the IHH, one of the main groups behind the Flotilla. The IHH is an organization which is highly political and extreme. The IHH has been linked by French Intelligence services to Al-Qaeda based activities and in plots to target US airports and civilians. It is extremely strange to me that people are so sympathetic to the IHH and its Flotilla considering its other activities.
I have also been asked questions regarding Hamas' election and Israel's trouble negotiating with Hamas. It is important to note that to say that Israel does not negotiate with Hamas would be false. Negotiations (often indirect) are constant and this is how so many cease-fires are brought about. What has not been negotiated is a long-term peace agreement, although this is not a failing of Israel by any means. Any entity (eg. Egypt) which has agreed to come to the bargaining table with Israel has walked away with a peace treaty or similar agreement. There is one important item, however, which these parties agree to and with Hamas does not: Israel's right to exist. Hamas continually refuses to modify its charter to recognize a Jewish state. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel, the death of its citizens and attacks on all allies (Canada included). It is impossible to have meaningful negotiations when one side refuses to recognize the other's basic existence. I, for example, could not discuss human rights with someone who refused to recognize a gay person's right to an opinion. The discussion would simply break down. It couldn't proceed. This is the stumbling block of negotiating with Hamas.
It is true that Hamas was elected by the Gazans. However, Hamas violently intimidates their opponents to the point of massacre. As well, election does not alter the character of an entity. An elected terrorist organization is still a terrorist organization. And caving to the unruly demands of a terrorist group is a hopeless act. Terrorists cannot be reasoned with in the way a regular group can. They are like a child throwing a tantrum - giving the child what they want will only teach her that she may throw a similar tantrum anytime to obtain her desires. Similarly, agreeing to the demands of a terrorist entity will only encourage future occurrences of the same. It is also worth remembering that election by a populace (especially a scared, brainwashed and coerced populace) does not lend much legitimacy. After all, many violent dictators in Africa and South America (as well as Hitler in Germany) got their start as democratically elected officials.
Canada, the United States and Israel (amongst others) recognize Hamas as having been elected and as the leaders of the Gazan people. But this does not entail that they should remove Hamas from their terrorist lists - Hamas' election does not alter its nature.
THE BLOCKADE OF GAZA:
Is the blockade of Gaza sustainable? Absolutely not. While the people of Gaza receive millions upon millions of tons of aid their living conditions are still not optimal. As well, the blockade costs Israel plenty of money, resources, and reputation. Blockades in general are only temporary stop-gaps to solving problems. HOWEVER, the un-sustainability of the blockade does not mean it should immediately be dismantled. Consider as an analogy our dependance on fossil fuels. It is a terrible situation in which we do harm to the environment and ruin resources we cannot replace. It is not sustainable in the least. But if we were to stop using fossil fuels over night we would face a world-wide collapse and catastrophe. We would have no transportation, no heating, no trade... chaos would ensue. Instead what we need is a thoroughly researched and timed transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy, such as solar power. We need to have a proper transition to avoid collapse of economies and industries (if not society).
To end the blockade instantly would be similarly disastrous and would allow an incredible surge of weaponry bound for Hamas and costs thousands of innocent lives. It would destabilize an entire region and potentially lead to confrontation on a world scale. A removal of the blockade must be done only after negotiations have provided for a government for Gaza which has a peace treaty with Israel and a value for peace in general. A removal of the blockade must be a slow and delicate process.
I hope that this has provided some insight into my views. Feel free to share it with others.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
