[Author's introductory note: The following is a letter I wrote to the Irish Foreign Affairs Minister Michael Martin, a pro-Palestinian supporter and vocal critic of Israel.  I did not initially intend to submit this letter for publication. However, I felt that publishing it might encourage others to do the same where their representatives or government ministers are taking an unreasonable stance in relation to the Gaza Flotilla incident. Since I wrote the letter, Minister Martin published an extreme article in a prominent Irish newspaper which indicates he will try to influence the EU to break the blockade on Gaza.  But he seems to think nothing of courting communist China. It should be obvious that Israel is facing an existential crisis. The extraordinary hysteria in the media internationally and on the streets is a timely reminder of this fact. Israel needs more sensible vocal support from those who truly care about its future.]

Dear Minister,

As an Irish citizen living in Ireland I feel it is my duty to provide some observations on the stance taken by yourself and An Taoiseach [the Prime Minister] Mr. Brian Cowen with regard to the Gaza flotilla. Although I am not really a political campaigner I still decided to write to you because I feel your approach to this issue has been deeply unbalanced and damaging.

I have listened to your comments on the Irish media since the Gaza flotilla crisis erupted on Monday the 31^st of May 2010. On that day, I listened to your interview on the RTE Radio 1 “News at One” show. You objected to the way Israel had characterised the members of the flotilla as extremists. You stated that they were legitimately protesting. Firstly, there is the issue of the legality in attempting to break a military blockade which I understand you believe is in itself illegal – I will return to this point later. Secondly, your assertion failed to address the accusations that Israel made regarding the violent conduct of certain activists. You had previously stated in an interview on the RTE1 TV “News at Noon” that the military action was completely unnecessary. I found that a remarkable thing to say since you would not have been in possession of many facts at that stage and as a result unable to ascertain with certainty that there had not been a violent response to the boarding of the ship. You claimed in the “News at One” interview that other strategies by the Israeli’s could have been adopted. Subsequently, on TV interviews you stated they could have shadowed the vessels to Gaza. I do not understand what good this would have done in terms of allowing Israel to ensure that the cargo was legitimate humanitarian aid rather then a source of harm to its citizens. You also stated that such violence did not occur before when ships went to Gaza. That is true, but your assertion ignores the obvious point that unlike before, there may well have been a very violent response as the Israeli State has repeatedly alleged.

The flotilla was led by a group called Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief (IHH). IHH is a radical Islamic Turkish NGO. Sources going back to the 90’s state they are connected with Al-Qaeda and other jihad networks. One example is a 2006 report by terrorism consultant Evan F. Kohlmann. Moreover evidence indicates IHH is directly involved with terrorist activities. The greater potential for violence was a concern by some before the incident occurred. TV footage attests to the jihadist intent on the flotilla.

Violence with the boarding of the Israeli troops only occurred on one ship – coincidentally the Turkish ship. This seems to indicate that the Israeli troops did not set out with violent intent. The violent reaction of the passengers can be fairly characterised as extreme as this YouTube video attests.

You stated that Israel has options for dealing with the flotilla. However, you failed to address the options open to the organisers of the flotilla itself. They could have landed at an Egyptian port or Ashdod Port. When Gilad Shalit’s father asked them to deliver letters and parcels to Gilad, they refused. The humanitarian aspect of the flotilla was simply a mask for a more hostile intent. If aid was the true aim of these people it could have been supplied through border crossings. There have been numerous attempts to break the embargo, e.g. in 2008 one ship just carried 5,000 balloons. It was of course known that these ships would be detained. Pro-Palestinian groups milk the events for propaganda. When those on the “Spirit of Humanity” were released they wasted no time peddling lies that were at times truly shocking. A British activist compared the low security prisons where activists like himself were detained with a Nazi concentration camp. The purpose is solely to cause diplomatic incidents to embarrass Israel and it is no coincidence commentators are claiming the present incident is a victory for Hamas. They and pro-Palestinians are the ones that benefited. Here is an article that discusses it.

The Taoiseach Mr. Brian Cowen has been quite unhelpful with regard to his own comments as well. In the Dáil [the Irish House of Parliament] he stated there would be “serious consequences” if any Irish citizen was harmed. Similarly, you stated later on Monday that the Irish citizens on board these ships were kidnapped and demanded that Israel treat the Irish ship the MV Rachel Corrie with respect. A very large number of Irish citizens are involved in this charade of attacking Israel supposedly for humanitarian reasons. None have been harmed in the past to the best of my knowledge. Therefore, while it is of course important to speak out about any concerns regarding Irish citizens, such strong language was unnecessary as it is unlikely any Irish citizens were harmed unless some happened to be on the Turkish vessel.

The alternative of breaking the embargo which you and many others endorse, will of course let shipments into Gaza without weapon import controls. This is a remarkable thing for any right-thinking individual to seek. Need I remind you that Hamas controls Gaza? They are funded and supplied with weapons by Iran. They will inevitably rearm themselves without the previous limitations imposed by using tunnels. The ensuing result will be another war with Israel which could be a good deal worse as Hamas will be much better equipped. How can anyone in good conscience claim that this is a viable alternative unless they regard the destruction of the State of Israel as a worthy goal?

To the best of my knowledge you are the loudest critic of Israel in the Irish Government and have been involved in quite a number of proposals and initiatives harmful to the State of Israel. Only in recent weeks you were involved with the UN conference limiting weapons of mass destruction in the Middle-East which resulted in a declaration which astonishingly singled out Israel rather than Iran, the state that threatened the Jewish Nation with extinction.

At the ICTU conference in April you asserted to your credit that you did not believe in boycotting Israel. However, at the same time you spoke of the need for Israel (rather than the Palestinians) to move toward a position where peace was possible and strongly advocated a two-state solution. I sometimes wonder when I hear the views of pro-Palestinians if they are referring to the same conflict. People like yourself act as if Israel alone prevents a Palestinian state. The Palestinian’s rejected every opportunity from the 1947 UN Partition resolution to the offer in 2008 by Ehud Olmert who agreed to virtually all the territory they demanded. As history has shown repeatedly, all parties require some level of good faith before there is any chance of achieving peace. In the past, the Israeli electorate has often backed peace-makers while the Palestinians often choose the opposite, such as with the 2006 Gaza election of the Islamist group Hamas. At best, “peace” talks are an exercise to appease the unrealistic expectations of the international community and at worst, a game of strategy to gain a propaganda victory. See a 2003 survey where only 20% of Palestinians state they will peacefully co-exist with Israel.

Israel will not be secure even if it achieves peace with the Palestinians. Besides the obvious threats of extinction, Iran is funding Hamas’ and Hizbullah’s assaults on Israel. Peace negotiations with Egypt and Jordan succeeded in preventing further military conflict but relations were never truly normalised at state level decades after peace was made. Syria’s leaders have indicated that normalised relations are not an option. Turkey, with its present Islamist government became hostile long before the current controversy. This conflict is an intermittent Islamic/pan-Arab war. Despite the precarious situation, Western politicians that luxuriate in peace aggressively encourage this state to take “risks for peace.” Yet when peace efforts go wrong they typically ignore the common Palestinian intransigence.

In your op-ed article for the New York Times “Gaza a Year Later” (published 4^th March 2010) you wrote: “The tragedy of Gaza is that it is fast in danger of becoming a tolerated humanitarian crisis, a situation that most right-thinking people recognize as utterly unacceptable in this day and age but which is proving extremely difficult to remedy or ameliorate due to the blockade and the wider ramifications of efforts to try and achieve political progress in the Middle East.” In no way has it become or is becoming a “tolerated humanitarian crisis.” It is a crisis but certainly not one of the most serious in humanitarian terms. The population is not starving. Yes, rebuilding infrastructure and improving living conditions is problematic. You clearly blame Israel, but as soon as Hamas in essence committed a military coup it had little option but to isolate this terrorist organisation which has repeatedly stated in recent years that it will use terrorist acts to destroy Israel. When it greatly increased its attacks on Israel, it became, in effect, in a state of war. I am no expert on international law, but it is clear Israel has a legal right to defend its citizens. More importantly, it has a moral right.

You wrote:

“What I witnessed in Gaza, amidst all the rubble and devastation still so evident from last year’s conflict, was a population traumatized and reduced to poverty by an unjust and completely counterproductive blockade. All that is being achieved through the imposition of the blockade is to enrich Hamas and marginalize even further the voices of moderation. I view the current conditions prevailing for the ordinary population as inhumane and utterly unacceptable, in terms of accepted international standards of human rights.”

In actual fact, what “is being achieved” is a legitimate defence of Israeli citizens. The voices of moderation were thrown off rooftops. I refer to Fatah/PLO which aren’t exactly voices of moderation but are not quite so implacably opposed to Israel’s existence. Whether we like it or not the citizens of Gaza chose their fate when they elected Hamas because, in effect, they chose war. This is not a justification for collective punishment but neither can we simply excuse the election as some sort of expression of democratic will which shouldn’t have any consequences one way or another. All adults bear the brunt of moral choices so why exactly should Gazan’s be exempt? To suggest that the moral actions of the citizens of Gaza and the corresponding consequences should not be connected is to equate them with children. This is not a justification for their suffering but an assertion that they themselves are at least partially morally responsible for their present unfortunate circumstances. They chose war and they will chose it again. This clearly does not fit in with your view of peace loving Palestinians but that in itself does not make it incorrect. To ignore war mongering will not bring peace. Simply ignoring it will worsen the situation and harm the forces that legitimately oppose it.

Quite frankly I realise it is unlikely this letter will hold any sway with you or your department. However, I hope the points raised will encourage some reflection on the issue and, despite your feelings of support for the Palestinians, bring about a greater impartiality in dealing with this and future matters relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This year for the Passover Seder some Israeli families left a symbolic empty chair for Gilad Shalit, the soldier who was abducted by Hamas on June 25, 2006, and remains in captivity today. Nineteen years old at the time, he is described as “well-mannered, quiet and introverted”—an account that fits the clips of him that have been shown, in some periods with high regularity, on Israeli TV since his kidnapping.

Apparently both the Olmert and Netanyahu governments have judged that there is no military option for rescuing Shalit even though he’s located, so to speak, next door to Israel in Gaza. The Israeli defense establishment either doesn’t know more precisely where he is, or does know but regards the spot, and his situation—heavily guarded? surrounded by explosives?—as infeasible for a rescue attempt.

Somewhat surprisingly, about half a year ago the Netanyahu government was involved in negotiations with Hamas for Shalit’s release in return for a draconian number of terrorists, generally reported as about a thousand. It still wasn’t enough for Hamas and the negotiations broke down. Before they did Hamas released a coerced video of Shalit, made on September 14, 2009, in which he addressed his family members and spoke of his desire for freedom. In a segment this week on Israel’s Channel 2 news, Shalit’s parents said they had heard nothing of him since then, and possibly no one else in Israel has either.

As Shalit’s captivity approaches four years, the cruelty of what is being inflicted on him and his family—even if completely to be expected from a group like Hamas—is limitless. In stark contravention of international law, even the International Red Cross has not been allowed to visit him. Although Hamas has practical aims—coercing a higher price out of Israel, pressuring its government and its society more generally—the cruelty is also an expression of sheer hatred, a phenomenon in itself.

The phenomenon has a deeply sobering effect in Israel but does not necessarily impress others. When EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton visited Gaza two weeks ago, there is no indication that she sought a meeting with Shalit or, as David Harris put it in an open letter to her, “press[ed] [her] hosts on why no one has been permitted to visit him since his abduction.” When, during her visit, a Thai worker in Israel was killed by a Hamas rocket, the most Ashton could say was “I condemn any kind of violence, we need to move forward to get the peace process moving toward a successful resolution.”

Ashton’s apparent softness or blindness toward Hamas is consistent with a trend: the EU’s official research institute, the Institute for Security Studies, has published a series of reports urging engagement with the Gaza-based group and others of its kind. The most recent, titled “Engaging Hamas: Rethinking the Quartet Principles,” argues that the EU’s three conditions for recognizing Hamas—renouncing violence, recognizing Israel, accepting previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements—should be relaxed in the interests of “peace.” The paper makes no mention of Shalit.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for her part, seemed to touch the right base last week in her speech to AIPAC by proclaiming that “Gilad Shalit must be released immediately and returned to his family.” But the Obama administration’s fervor to create a Palestinian state—reportedly within two years—exposes the shallowness of the words. Such a state would have to be ruled, at least in part, by Hamas. The administration can’t have missed that fact, but is not deterred by it.

Meanwhile Gilad Shalit has lost almost four years of his young life sitting in some cellar. Seriousness about the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” presupposes relating to this with something beyond empty platitudes.

As an oleh chadash (new immigrant) that came to land of the Jewish people not due to persecution or suffering but because of deep-rooted beliefs in Zionism, like many I have a big problem with all the latest discussions over Gilad Shalit.

As an oleh chadash that has recently received a profile score of 97 to serve my mandatory army service in a combat unit, and as an oleh chadash that for the past year has lived in the Gaza border city of Sderot I have an enormous problem with the latest discussions over Gilad Shalit.

I do not hold some seat in the government with some fancy title but I know what is going on now is wrong and it pains me to watch it happen.

Why is the discussion during the past week about how many terrorists we are going to give Hamas, Fatah, and the PA as a whole for Gilad’s return? Why isn’t the discussion about how we are going to make Hamas pay a huge price for the kidnapping of Gilad or about a plan to retrieve him?

Because we simply have entered into the Arabs’ shuk of hostage negotiating they have already declared a victory that will only empower them to kidnap more soldiers. It is laughable if one believes that they care if they get back 400, 1000, 980 or even 5 of their terrorists because they are in no way lacking numbers, and moreover as they use their own sons and daughters as human shields they clearly don’t value the lives of those they are receiving.

After a 21 day operation inside the Gaza Strip and we didn’t see Gilad back home, and now with our government, providing our enemies with the future opportunities to kidnap more of our sons and brothers- what am I supposed to think as someone soon entering the Israeli Defense Forces for ideological reasons when I know that my homeland won’t rescue me and will minimally take over 3 years to trade me only at the cost of future capture of others like me?

As someone living in Sderot since Operation Cast Lead it is hard to believe that this cowardly surrender to our enemies will bring anything but more missiles to more cities in Israel. It is awing to me when even the Defense Minister Ehud Barak has accepted the reality of rockets in our lives when last week in Sderot he described the situation as quiet. Friday before Shabbat we surpassed a count of 280 qassams, mortars and grads fired since Operation Cast Lead- apparently an acceptable amount to our elected leaders.

So what am I supposed to think as someone who lives in Sderot for the same ideological reasons that I have come to my homeland and will serve in our army, when I know our government is giving our enemies the opportunity to fire more missiles at me and others like me?

Can we really not get Gilad back with our infamous intelligence sources, stealth, and military training? Or has our government already sacrificed him and others to be so that they can get political points with all the world on-lookers and as a result maybe Bibi can also get a handout Nobel Peace Prize?

While all of this is happening and is considered a movement toward a greater peace deal, are we really supposed to believe it is all because of that scary hot-topic term “settlements.” Sderot, Ashkelon, and Beersheva are all targets of missile attacks that are not considered “settlements” by our administration or the Obama led American administration. Gilad Shalit was born in Nahariya and grew up in Mitzpe Hila, both of which are not “settlements.” So how can disallowing the growth of the Jewish nation or what George Mitchell and Barack Obama deem illegal settlement building really help bring Gilad home, stop the future capture of Israelis, and stop missiles from being fired at Israelis?

I do not intend to be facetious in writing all these questions but I am truly asking. As an oleh chadash soon entering the IDF and living in Sderot, what I am observing baffles me and leaves me with a load of questions.

Jacob Shrybman is a writer for the Sderot Media Center.

]]> http://frontpagemag.com/2009/12/01/the-deal-for-gilad-shalit-by-jacob-shrybman/feed/ 9