Gaza, IDF, United States, Israel, etc
I first became inclined toward politics back in the early 90’s while attending community college. It was around that time that I read an in-depth article about the S&L crisis in Harpers Magazine. I had heard about S&L’s in the news and seen the headlines in the papers, but you know… Why would a college kid be interested in financial news? Especially something with such a banal name like “the S&L crisis”? Talk about mego…
But for some reason I picked up that magazine and read the article. It was a long article by L.J. Davis that crystallized how connected businessmen and politicians rigged the system for their own gain, at the expense of pensioners, savers and unwitting investors. The political engineering was so complete that even after the scheme catastrophically unraveled, there could be no consequences for the bad actors. In fact, even as the artifice crumbled, the moral (if not legal) criminals that had built it up profited from its destruction. (Of course, today’s financial scandal is a perfect example history repeating.)
Back then the outrage that moved me was the lack of recourse. Concerned and knowledgeable citizens were utterly powerless; it was clear that there were just too many complicit actors in high places. Sure, some careers were derailed here and there… A bank president or two went to jail… But overall, the imposition of consequences proportionate to the crime was an exceedingly rare sight. And there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Well, for the next fifteen years I kept my finger on the pulse of the news and watched as the environment was raped, tyrants were coddled, unjust wars were launched, innocents were jailed, and workers lost ground while the powerful pillaged by paper and sword. And the frustration I first felt after reading the Harpers article never abated. I didn’t see any means by which I, or anyone else that cared, could make a difference.
In 2003, everything changed when I discovered something entirely new: blogs. In the years since, I’ve combined a personal commitment to activism with my new-found ability to reach hundreds of thousands of people almost at will. It’s been one hell of a ride, and at times I’ve felt surprisingly empowered, but… now I’m having second thoughts.
Back when this adventure started, Tom Delay (with his lackey, Denny Hastert) led the House and Bill Frist, the Senate. George Bush and a radical Republican administration spoke of perpetual Republican governance. All of that came crashing down, and some of that can be credited to the liberal blogosphere and its allied activists. Our commitment and resourcefulness was noticed: you can bet that in 2003, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would have drawn a blank if asked to comment on “bloggers.” Today, both attend our events, hold fairly regular blogger conference calls and even have staff tasked with “New Media Outreach.”
But for all of our success, how much have we changed?
When I ask Hill staffers that question, an air of defensiveness descends like a wet blanket. I’m told that sure, we haven’t enacted every item on the progressive wish-list, but we’ve stopped the bleeding. In other words, without Republicans in power, we don’t wake up to stories about torture being approved at the highest levels, wilderness areas being opened to oil and gas exploration, and the Department of Justice being overrun by ideologues.
Is that good enough? Is it good enough that we’ve turned away from the absolute worst path we could choose? That instead of heading due south, we’ve changed course to south-by-southwest?
I bring this up because the same frustration that singed me throughout the nineties is manifest once more. When I see peace activists murdered in cold blood for something so decent as trying to deliver food to starving poor children, and then I look to my government and see the people I helped to elect run interference for the murderers, I begin to wonder if we’re wasting our time. If all of our commitment and all of our activism and all of our creativity and all of our money and all of our worn-out sneakers and all of our speaking truth to power and all of our hours spent phone-banking and all of our writing and all of our organization and all of our voting….
Well, what will it take to get our leaders to say that murdering peace activists is wrong? What will it take to get our leaders to say that starving an entire population is wrong? What will it take to get our leaders to say that crushing a non-violent proponent of peace (and an American citizen) with a bulldozer is wrong? That firing a tear-gas cannister into a crowd at close range and shooting out the eye of another peaceful American proponent of peace… is wrong? That at the very least, the American people deserve hearings. That at the very least, it’s time for a fact-finding Congressional delegation to visit Gaza?
I’m afraid that at this time next week, the world will have forgotten about the peace flotilla, the same way we’ve forgotten about Rachel Corrie… Our government will wait this out, and soon enough a new Janet Jackson will show a nipple. Our media will chase the shiny ball and the people of Gaza will continue to starve.
And when sarin gas is released in the New York city subways… or when a chemical plant alongside the 1-95 corridor in New Jersey is blown to pieces, killing thousands… or when gunmen storm an elementary school with assault weapons, killing scores of children… Well then we’re all going to cry rivers of tears and wonder how such an unfortunate calamity could happen. Why do they hate us so?
I’m writing this because yesterday I was on a conference call with Nancy Pelosi. I asked about the flotilla and Rachel Corrie and the American 21-year-old girl that lost an eye at the hands of the IDF. I asked about the starving kids of Gaza.
Here’s Speaker Pelosi’s reply:
Well first of all this incident, as you mentioned, is very recent. There is a very strong interest in getting the facts. A transparent and credible investigation is what people are calling for, that’s what the White House has mentioned and that’s what I support as well. We have to have the facts on which to make a judgment about how to go forward.
I don’t know and I appreciate what you are saying, that people are suffering from different physical challenges because of the blockade, I don’t know that… I know that blockades have consequences. And, again, we all saw this in real time because everyone has a camera and I think that people make a case on either side as to who was provocative and who was not. But the fact is this is a terribly regrettable situation. I regret the loss of life first and foremost and again call for a credible and transparent investigation to find our how this came to be.
I don’t know of any investigations planned to look into the Corrie incident, no.
Israel is our friend, well, we have a “Special Relationship” with Britian – I think that’s the only place we have that terminology. I think with Israel we have a very close friendship and to have a Democratic Jewish state in that region is something that has been a goal of our foreign policy. It is something that is based on our national security interest; it is about us as much – even more – than it is about them. We all – many of us here are striving for a two-state solution. They are not going to have a secure Jewish state in the region unless there is a two-state solution. But it has to be a solution where there is security for both sides. And hopefully President Obama will be able to use his good offices to achieve such a goal that has been bi-partisan in support in Congress. But again, I believe that the specialness of our relationship with Israel has as much to do with our own national security as it does with theirs.
Later, the speaker was asked if she thought the blockade of Gaza should be lifted. Her answer to that question:
I don’t want to go into a discussion of the blockade of Gaza. I would hope that we can end that by having a resolution in terms of Middle East peace. That’s where we spend our time – not necessarily on one particular tactic of one country or the next – but on the bigger picture which is we must have peace in the Middle East. It must respect both sides; it must have a two-state solution. And I emphasize the solution part of it so that both sides feel respected and well-treated and safe as they go forward with the new peace agreement. And I hope that whatever actions are taken on both sides, it’s in furtherance of reaching that peace.
I could go on to poke obvious holes in the Speaker’s responses, but that’s not the point here; I’ll leave that to Glenn Greenwald if he so desires. Instead, I want to ask this: why is it so difficult to achieve basic justice and decency when the contours of the issue are so starkly drawn? There is a clear villain here. If the netroots can’t be influential here, can we trust that we’ve got influence anywhere else? To the extent that we’ve had policy successes (as opposed to electoral), how can we be sure that any policy outcome was actually affected by our efforts? What I’m getting at is that I’m beginning to fear that the netroots is co-opted by the political establishment when it comes to politics, but when policy is discussed, we are simply patted on our little heads and told to go back to playing on our internets.
In other words, all that empowerment I’ve felt at times since the dawn if the blogs… well, beyond our ability to keep Republicans from really fucking up the world, I’m not sure how effective we are at achieving our ultimate ends: realizing better policy outcomes.
As long as Hamas resorts to terrorism and refuses to cede Israel’s right to exist, Israel will always have the legal and moral high ground.
It’s really THAT simple.
As for the blockade, I suggest you read the San Remo Manual of 1994. Israel’s blockade of Gaza is perfectly in accordance with international law.
Michale32086
Michale32086
2 Jun 10 at 11:40 am
mike,
i know you to be an intelligent and informed person.
please do not be like the rest of the faux progressives when it comes to the middle east.
why does greenwald act like a normal progressive on every other issue, then goes out of his way to be an apologist for hamas?
there will be no investigation into rachel corrie, cuz she committed suicide. yes, that is what you call someone who decides to play chicken with an up armored tractor.
the girl who lost her eye yesterday is just another stooge for the terrorist front group known as the ism.
there is no humanitarian crisis in gaza…do some research.
and those people on board that ship were not murdered…you cannot commit murder when acting in self defense
walt kovacs
3 Jun 10 at 8:10 pm
Walt,
I can assure you that I have not only researched the situation vis a vis Israel vs Gaza, I have seen it first hand..
Allow me to lay some “research” on you…
The question of whether or not the Israeli Navy had the authority to board the Mavi Marmara is rather clear cut.
But it can only be addressed by first addressing the question;
Is the blockade of Gaza by Israel legal?
The answer to that question, according to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, is clearly, “YES”…
Once it is established that the blockade of Gaza is legal, then other portions of the San Remo Manual come into play.
Towhit, Israel is well within it’s rights to board any vessel attempting or intending to run it’s blockade in international waters anywhere in the world. Meaning that Israel could have legally boarded the Mavi Marmara as soon as they cleared Cyprus territorial waters as intent to blockade run was well established by that time.
This is what international law says….
You can read the San Remo Manual here:
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce
As the San Remo Manual clearly shows, the blockade of Gaza is completely legal and lawful. Therefore, any vessel found to be running the blockade or when intent to run blockade is established then said vessel can be legally boarded, seized and, if the blockading party deems it necessary, attacked and sunk.
If the blockade is legal and lawful, then any and all actions that were taken by Israel in this incident are also legal and lawful.
Of course, conversely, if the blockade is an illegal blockade, then it becomes clear that Israel is legally in the wrong..
There is only one part of the San Remo Manual that could, repeat *COULD* make the Gaza blockade illegal..
PART IV, SECTION II, Paragraph 102:
The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
Subsection (a) does not apply, because it is clear that sole purpose of the blockade is NOT the starvation of Gaza but rather to stop weapons from reaching Hamas. This is evidenced by the fact that Israel imports thousands of tons of aid into Gaza every month. So, obviously starving the population is not the goal.
Subsection (b) would be the only section that one could hang their hat on, as far as illegality goes..
According to the subsection, a blockade would be illegal if the damage to the civilian population is excessive in relation to the direct military advantage that said blockade would provide.
The damage to the civilian population is clear. However, it IS mitigated to a great extent by the humanitarian aid that flows into Gaza from Israel on a daily basis..
So, while there IS damage to the civilian population, it is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination.
Now, let’s look at the direct military advantage that the blockade provides to Israel.
This is abundantly and crystal clear. The ability of Hamas to obtain weapons that would, in turn, be used against innocent Israeli civilians is severely curtailed.
Therefore, the damage to the civilian population of Gaza is not sufficiently excessive to out weigh the very real military advantage afforded Israel by way of keeping an excessive amount of weaponry out of Hamas’ hands.
I am also constrained to point out that Hamas STILL can smuggle in weapons thru secret tunnels at the Gaza/Egyptian border. The fact that Hamas chooses to smuggle in weapons and explosives rather than foodstuffs and medicines makes it abundantly clear that Hamas is more interested in killing Israelis than they are in taking care of their own citizens.
Further, I must also point out that many countries in the region, INCLUDING Turkey and Egypt signed off on the blockade as perfectly legal. Up until yesterday, Egypt actually participated in the blockade, coordinating their efforts with Israel.
All of these facts support the opinion that the Israeli Blockade of Gaze is perfectly legal and in accordance with international law.
And, as I stated at the beginning. If the blockade is legal, then the IHH Flotilla incident that flowed from that blockade is also legal.
Next, I will address the REAL problem in Gaza…
Michale32086
Michale32086
4 Jun 10 at 7:22 am
As far Gaza, it is clear to the objective person where the problem lies.
Hamas
The Gaza blockade could end today, right this second, if the Palestinians really wanted to..
It’s quite simple. Three easy steps.
1. Hamas must release Cpl Schalit, a soldier who was illegally kidnapped and is being illegally held in violation of the Geneva Conventions. Incidentally, those are the same Conventions that Israel bashers routinely (and incorrectly) throw in Israel’s face.
2. Hamas must end all terrorist missile attacks on innocent Israeli civilians. If Hamas wants to fire missiles at military targets, by all means. Have a ball.. But terrorism against innocent civilians (I know, it’s redundant) must stop..
3. Hamas must concede Israel’s right to exist.
Now, look at those steps. Are ANY of them wrong?? Are ANY of them uncivilized, brutal or illogical??
No… All three steps are completely logical, rational and above all else, the right thing to do.
The biggest obstacle to peace in Gaza is Hamas. During the last Gaza conflict, the Israeli IDF cared more for the safety of innocent Palestinian civilians than Hamas did. This is documented fact.
There is an old “joke” amongst CT operators in the region.
When an air raid siren sounds in Israel, the Israeli government rushes it’s civilians down into shelters.
When an air raid siren sounds in Gaza, Hamas rushes it’s civilians to the target.
This is the sad reality of Gaza. Hamas could live in peace next to Israel if it would just be content to live in peace next to Israel.
Due to Hamas’ constant and unending terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, Israel will always have the legal, ethical and moral high ground. Israel will always have nearly carte-blanche in dealing with Hamas and the Palestinians.
This is not to say that Israel is utterly blameless and mistake free. Israel has made some bone head moves and initiated some real PR disasters..
However, it is clear that, in all their mistakes, that it was dealing with Hamas that precipitated these errors in judgment on the part of Israel. In other words, if there was no Hamas to deal with, there wouldn’t have been any mistakes from Israel on this particular issue.
This illustrates exactly why Hamas is the biggest obstacle to peace in Gaza.
Michale32086
Michale32086
4 Jun 10 at 7:38 am
Walt,
DOH!!!!
Color me embarrassed..
When you said, “Mike”, I thought you were referring to me..
Had I actually READ your comment more closely, rather than just assuming that you were disagreeing with me, I would have saw that, apparently, you and I are of the same opinion when it comes to Hamas.
My bust.. And my sincerest apologies..
Michale32086
Michale32086
4 Jun 10 at 7:56 am
Well, isn’t this interesting…
a British passenger who witnessed the deadly pre-dawn encounter in international waters said that some of the more peaceful activists on board had tried to protect captured Israeli soldiers being set upon by a hardcore of passengers, most of them believed to be Turks linked to an Islamic charity accused by Israel of having links to extremists.
As {the Israeli soldier} landed on the ship’s top deck, he said he saw three of his superior officers who had landed ahead of him lying wounded, one with a bullet wound to the stomach, another shot in the knee and the third beaten unconscious.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7144099.ece
So, by all means.. Please tell me again about the “peaceful and innocent activists”??
Tell me how this is not a clear case of self defense..
Michale32086
Michale32086
4 Jun 10 at 12:47 pm
yes, i was addressing mr stark…not you
i tried to post more, but for some reason the blog would not allow me to, so i had to cut my comments
but you have hit all the salient points…the points which “progressives” choose to ignore
its funny….were it not for israel, these same progressives would be attacking the hamas regime for its regressive policies…like killing gays
walt kovacs
8 Jun 10 at 4:00 pm
its funny….were it not for israel, these same progressives would be attacking the hamas regime for its regressive policies…like killing gays
Strange bedfellows indeed..
If Iran makes good on it’s threat to escort blockade runners into Gaza, it will make for an interesting conflict amongst the Israel bashers around here.
Do they side with Israel, who they obviously hate?? Or do they side with Iran who makes executing gays a public policy??
It’s also relevant to mention that Hamas has killed twice as many Palestinians as Israel has… Never see that little factoid mentioned when people espouse the “honor” and sincerity of Hamas, eh??
Michale…..
Michale32086
10 Jun 10 at 8:01 am