A Civil Disagreement

I'm always glad to find a viewpoint differing from mine that forces me to think and respond. Tony Judt has written a NY Times op-ed on the Israeli seizure of "humanitarian aid" boats off the coast of Gaza. He sees it differently and I find that useful because it forces me to think. My basic viewpoint is that any nation has the right to defend its borders. This case is a bit unique since Israel has put a blockade beyond its own borders. But the US did essentially the same in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. Nobody claims this was an egregious violation of International Law. A nation has a right to defend its security. Where the argument lies is in distinguishing a fair defense from an overly aggressive, bullying "defense".

Here are some interesting tidbuts (Judt is in italics):

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments does not “delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of the rulers of North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States — “delegitimizes” them. When Israel breaks international law, it should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a state under international law that we have that leverage.

I dislike this as the opening salvo from Judt because it quietly assumes that Israel's border inspection of Hamas ships was illegitimate and wrong, an uncivilized action at odds with "international law". That premise is false. Would Turkey allow allow partisans of the worst foaming-at-the-mouth Israeli nationalists land a flotilla of "humanitarian aid" at the docks in Istanbul? Worse still, would it allow the Kurds to land uninspected "humanitarian aid" at these Turkish docks? Judt quietly assumes it is the obligation of every sovereign state to allow its avowed enemies to land whatever "humanitarian aid" they please. This is utter nonsense.

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is largely true: the country has an independent judiciary and free elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly discouraged.

This is rich. Sure Israel falls short of an ideal democratic state. But it is a civil society under rule of law and a stable state far closer to being a society that we can engage with than anything else in the Middle East. It makes the "democracy" of Egypt look pathetic. It makes Syria a laughingstock. It makes Jordan look unreliable and far too undemocratic to be a serious partner. Just which country in the Middle East would Tony Judt really want to sit down and negotiate a serious treaty on substantive issues? The only one I see is Israel. Anything else is delusion and farce.

As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy of the “terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power, independence or a place at the table. Israel will negotiate with Hamas: the only question is why not now.

These words sound so reasonable. Does Tony Judt really believe them? If so, let's make Tony Judt the chief negotiator to deal with North Korea. Obviously he can whip up a deal and solve the problems with saber rattling from Kim Il Jong in two shakes of a lamb's tale. And... using this reasoning, Neville Chamberlain was the politician of the hour when he went to Munich and "cut a deal" with Hitler. Obviously Churchill was a fool and out of touch with reality by complaining that you couldn't do a deal with the Nazis. Why just look at history!

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak — bombing civilian targets was not invented by Arabs (nor by the Jews who engaged in it before 1948). Morally indefensible, it has characterized resistance movements of all colors for at least a century. Israelis are right to insist that any talks or settlements will depend upon Hamas’s foreswearing it.

But Palestinians face the same conundrum as every other oppressed people: all they have with which to oppose an established state with a monopoly of power is rejection and protest. If they pre-concede every Israeli demand — abjurance of violence, acceptance of Israel, acknowledgment of all their losses — what do they bring to the negotiating table? Israel has the initiative: it should exercise it.

This is the nub of the conflict. Each side is right, but stalemated. Tony Judt believes Israel needs to go an extra step. My viewpoint is that they have already gone the extra step and been left in the lurch each time. It is time to quit calling on Israel to be "reasonable" and to start putting more pressure on Hamas and Fatah to make the assurances that this time they are ready for real negotiations.

Thanks to Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey: a Muslim democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union, that is the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian affairs. Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab world. The time has come to cut through the clichés surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the umbilical cord.

I disagree. Turkey has elected an Islamist government and this has created the fracture line between Turkey and the West. The crocodile tears of Turkey over the treatment of its citizens at the hands of an Israeli military enforcing a blockade should be ignored. They aren't sincere.