Barack Obama and his State Department have called for an inquiry into Israel’s interception of the “Gaza flotilla,” and so have other Western foreign ministries, eager to appease Muslims and Leftists who have achieved new levels of anti-Israeli hysteria.
This is a political feint: since the results of such an inquiry entirely depend on who conducts it. The facts and flavour of the incident are on public show: we have videos of the Israeli boarding, and of how it was received by the Islamist thugs who were waiting aboard.
From a strictly Israeli angle, an internal review of the mission would be helpful, to establish how to conduct such interceptions more efficiently, with the minimum of casualties on all sides, given the tactics Israel’s enemies are now using. The boarding of the Mavi Marmara appears to have been, especially for an IDF operation, clumsy. More force was necessary from the outset, to avoid the scandal of rappelling isolated soldiers into angry pipe and chain-wielding mobs. But we can leave that to the tactical experts; and Israel has no shortage of those.
Moreover, the Israelis invariably conduct reviews after missions; and in a state with such a highly developed legal and constitutional apparatus—with a judiciary that is not only independent, but feisty—we can be sure that allegations of wrongful behaviour by Israeli troops will not be ignored.
So what would be the point of an international inquiry? That is, apart from the usual political motive of kicking the ball down the road—what Israel’s more cowardly, lukewarm defenders would like to do now. The idea of another corrupt United Nations inquiry, like their one into the imaginary “massacre” at Jenin, or the Goldstone report, wets the lips of anti-Semites everywhere.
And when you kick the ball down the road—especially to a U.N. whose Human Rights Council is dominated by a bloc of unsavoury Islamic and African regimes, back-stopped by Russia, Cuba, and China—you get what you were asking for. The UNHRC has already passed a resolution, 32-3, which demands a perfectly redundant probe, since it pronounces Israel guilty in advance, and in the usual inflammatory language.
The background legalities of the Israeli blockade of Gaza are not subject to reasonable debate. It is meticulously obedient to international maritime law, and it was and continues to be supported and recognized by Canada, the U.S., and members of the European Union. There was nothing even slightly illegal or irregular about Israel’s interception, if existing international law is our guide.
It is likewise nonsense to claim that Israel is preventing “humanitarian aid” from reaching the enclave. She merely requires that goods be inspected, and war materials omitted from delivery. Israelis have endured many thousand gratuitous rocket attacks from Gaza; the requirement is eminently reasonable. Nor had Israelis any reason to trust the word of Islamist militants who, in addition to waving pipes and chains about, were shown on Arab television chanting, “Remember Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews! The army of Muhammad is returning!” (The reference is to the Koran, and to the Muslim attack on the last Jewish oasis, and thus to the final elimination of the Jewish presence in 7th-century Arabia.)
The arguments above should have been made loudly and unambiguously by the U.S. State Department, not left to me. By being aloof when a crucial ally is under attack, the U.S. is actually encouraging Israel’s enemies to pile on.
This is the universal problem with an appeasement policy: why it has a 100 percent failure rate. You do not get peace by encouraging mortal enemies to attack your ally. You get peace by making your support of that ally crystal clear. You do not “win friends and influence nations” by leaving your allies to hang. By broadcasting weakness, confusion, indecision, and incompetence, the Obama administration is quickly squandering the U.S. ability to prevent wars.
But while I cannot see the point of encouraging a theatrical inquiry into an event where we already know the basic facts, I could see the point of an alternative investigation, not of Israel but of Turkey.
Turkey is a NATO member, which long ago signed a triple entente with the U.S. and Israel. The Turkish slide, away from the West and towards Islamism, has been apparent for some time. Private Turkish sponsorship of the Gaza flotilla is a matter of record; but the government of Prime Minister Erdogan, instead of trying to calm the waters, has used the issue to help whip up the anti-Israeli frenzy. This to top off a succession of theatrical acts, insulting alike to Israel and America.
We need a serious inquiry into the Turkish government’s instigation of this incident. The broader question ought no longer to be whether Turkey should be let into the EU, but whether she should remain in NATO.
- Robin Hoodism is on the rise - Sunday January 2, 2011 at 9:35 am
- Taking on the Reformation - Wednesday December 29, 2010 at 8:53 am
- The miserly Canadian - Wednesday December 22, 2010 at 5:23 am
