An intellectualized humorist once supposed that the Law is like the handle of a teacup: you can hold it with the right or the left hand, according to the individual taste of the “customer”, or should I say client - a necessary correction in order to avoid excessively hurting the feelings of the defender of a cause incapable of being defended. If interpretive distortions occur on invoking the Law, in general, such calculating distorted interpretations are multiplied thrice-fold in the field of International Law. The reason for this is that, at global level, justice-politics reveals symptoms of split personality: crawling and stammering when the defendant is strong, and speaking out harshly and imperiously when the defendant is weak.
In the case being examined here, it is Israel that is strong, scorning international sanctions. Strictly speaking, in legal terms, Israel cannot even plead “defense of its sovereignty”, given that the Gaza Strip has never been subject to its sovereignty. It has only been an area under military occupation. And it is not even this at the present time. As far as I know, years ago, the UN considered occupation of the Gaza Strip to be illegal - lamentably, without any kind of practical consequence... “Sovereignty” implies peaceful possession, accepted by the majority of the local population. This is obviously not the case with respect to Israel which, by the way, has already recognized such occupation as only an intrusion, to the extent that it withdrew from the area, despite the violent protests of hundreds of its settlers.
At the weak end of the spectrum are the Arabs who inhabit this small coastal rectangle, the victims of a blockade that has lasted for around three years. Apparently, the leaders of the current Israeli government do not remember the suffering of their parents or grandparents when the Nazis forced the Polish Jews to miserably live surrounded in the Warsaw ghetto. The suffering was so intense that the wretched population — starving, humiliated and convinced that they would end up in the gas chambers anyway — cast all caution aside and revolted, being crushed without pity, as they had foreseen. The world was duly moved by this heroic revolt. Notable literary pages arose as a result (e.g.: “Mila 18”, by Leon Uris, himself a Jew), inspired by the bravery of those who, fighting, knew they were going to die. In “normal” or “civilized” wars, combatants believe in the possibility of returning alive, which was obviously not an option in the case of the aforementioned revolt.
It is true that the current siege of Gaza is less virulent than that which existed in the Warsaw ghetto. The Palestinian ghetto is more “modest”, although it is still a ghetto. Photographs in international magazines show the city of Gaza to be under a stranglehold, surrounded by refuse, discomfort and poverty. Israel prohibits the entry of almost everything. It is a more “modest” ghetto because if it were the same as that which existed in Warsaw, the horror would provoke such an international scandal that any remaining international solidarity that benefits Israel, as a consequence of Nazi persecution, would disappear. An article in the São Paulo newspaper “O Estado de S. Paulo” (edition dated 3-6-10, on page A12) states that “only 16% of non-orthodox Jews in the USA, under 40 years of age, feel themselves to be very close to Israel”. In other words, 84% of American non-orthodox Jews (i.e., those who await the Messiah) already feel disappointed with Israeli policy, at least with respect to the Palestinians expelled from their lands. In addition, the entity providing this information is not an anti-Jewish organization; it is the American Jewish Committee. Furthermore, according to the same newspaper article, the current editor of Foreign Affairs magazine stated that “this new generation, 20 to 30 years of age, no longer identifies itself with certain Israeli policies and no longer envisages Israel as a moral actor”.
Jurists, with or without inverted commas, and more sophisticated journalists argue for or against the intervention measures and behavior shown by the Israeli commandos. The arguments vary widely but, if reduced to the most basic terms, it is easy to see who has the better judgment - legally and politically speaking - in the incident that resulted in the death of nine activists, without any Israeli casualties. There were wounded on both sides. As I said at the beginning of this article, legal texts always lend themselves - even more so in the field of International Law - to interpretations according to “individual taste”. Let us look at an example.
International waters. The invasion of the ship occurred in international waters, far from territorial waters under the solely de facto control of the Israelis. It should be remembered that the UN already decided, years ago, that the occupation of the Gaza Strip is illegal. If the occupation is illegal, in the last analysis, this area should not be policed and isolated by Israel, as that which is illegal does not merit legal protection. This is an important point in favor of the activists. Principally considering that there was no news or reasonable suspicion (Israeli intelligence would have easily gathered all necessary information during the preparatory phase of the marine flotilla) indicating that there were arms amongst the food and other items sent with a view to alleviating the situation of the besieged population.
The invasion of the vessel that led the small flotilla occurred at 04:00 hrs in the morning - “pirate tactics”, making the most of the slumber of those on board. If there was resistance on the part of the activists, this was perfectly natural and legitimate for the following reasons: firstly, because they were in international waters; and, secondly, because the mission of the flotilla was one of charity and solidarity, without any intention of violently taking possession of the lands of others, or any belligerent purposes. The physical resistance of a few was improvised, using chairs, iron rods, catapults and other fragile means of defense. If, eventually - and it is difficult to believe in the Israeli version... - one of the activists managed to gain possession of the weapon of an inattentive rather “half-witted” commando, this would be an act of defense rather than aggression, as in the case of someone who, in his own home, confronts thieves and manages to gain possession of the weapon of one of his assailants. Commandos are highly trained and certainly not inexperienced to the extent of losing possession of their weapons in moments of conflict.
In an article dated 4-6-10, on page A11 of the aforementioned newspaper, the writer Linda Grant reminds us of that which happened regarding the vessel “Exodus” in the summer of 1947. She draws an analogy between the two situations, although the respective positions are reversed, as the Exodus incident involved Jews attempting to break through a blockade. The ship in question carried 4,500 Holocaust survivors and left France destined for Palestine. It intended to run the blockade established by the British, who were quite rightly concerned with the incessant flow of Jews who had been, in the author’s own words, “rotting in displaced persons camps since the end of the war.” The English knew that the Palestinians would react against a mass “return” of Israelites after an absence of almost two thousand years. Linda Grant says that the Jews “didn't expect to be able to land, but they knew that the rickety vessel with its pitiful human cargo of refugees would show up the British as cold-hearted colonial masters. As the ship approached Haifa, the commander received a radio signal from the Zionist leadership not to risk the lives of the passengers by a confrontation. But the incalcitrant Polish captain refused to turn back. Hemmed in by three British destroyers, the crew and passengers found themselves boarded, and retaliated (very much like that which occurred in the case of the pro-Palestinian activists) with whatever weapons came to hand – a consignment of cans of kosher corned beef. The British killed three people.” The passengers were unable to disembark and were returned to refugee camps in Germany. This incident helped the Jewish cause tremendously, in terms of international sympathy. Any similarity to that which occurred regarding the “Freedom Flotilla” is not mere coincidence. It is a maritime precedent demonstrating that the violent reaction of a few individuals against the armed boarding of a vessel is perfectly normal. In addition, as far as I can gather from the above account, in the case of the “Exodus”, the vessel was not in international waters. Besides this, at the time, the United Kingdom had very much more legitimacy than Israel, today, with respect to impeding the progress of the 4,500 passengers who had come to settle in Palestine - a source of friction with Arab residents - , this being the opposite of the situation involving the “Free Gaza” activists, who only intended to deliver their humanitarian cargo and then return.
I have already read arguments, in favor of the Israelis, saying that the flotilla had been invited to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod, further to the south, where its cargo would be handed over to the local authorities, who would assume responsibility for transporting it to the city of Gaza after completing detailed inspection. Such an argument has little credibility, given that the Israelis remain firm in their resolve to maintain a “stranglehold” on the Hamas government in Gaza, depriving the population of basic items necessary for its daily existence. It is not easy to believe that the Israelis would act to the contrary, demonstrating their good faith by “forwarding” ten tons of humanitarian aid. Why should the pro-Palestinian activists believe in such a promise? If Israel intended to ensure that this aid arrived in Gaza, why did it not allow it to be unloaded in the port of Gaza, as the flotilla organizers had in mind, under close inspection by the Israeli army? Everything indicates that here one is dealing with an argument fabricated at the last moment, given the international fiasco resulting from violent interception of the flotilla.
With regard to this event, the ambivalent reaction shown by the government of Barack Obama is lamentable, considering that he is a president in whom I still persist in having great hopes. Initially, Obama requested that an investigation be performed by the Israelis themselves, acting on their own behalf - an absurd degree of naivety. Fortunately, following this, he suggested that an impartial international investigation be conducted. The meek American reaction can likely be explained by the imperious necessity of financial support by the American Jewish lobby in the next round of US legislative elections.
As everyone knows, even the most well-meaning democracies do not dispense with campaign financing. In a manner of speaking, the highest political positions are “purchased”, in part, via electoral propaganda. Success does not solely depend on the ideas and character of candidates. In addition, aggravating the difficult stance maintained by Obama, there is evident divergence between the views and sympathies of the president and his secretary of state with respect to the Middle East problem. It is difficult to imagine that the defeat of that valiant lady - within her own party, at the time of choosing the person who would be the democratic candidate during the last presidential election - has not left a significant degree of residual resentment which, like a volcano, lies dormant but not extinct, awaiting the right moment to erupt.
In today’s press, Prime Minister Netanyahu, somewhat surprised with the repercussions of his “disastrous piracy” said that he was seeking “creative solutions”. Netanyahu is really a patriot. However, he is a patriot of the old school, outdated and narrow minded, founded solely on egoism, only concerned about the happiness of his fellow citizens and indifferent to the suffering of other peoples.
“Creative solutions” always exist. The problem is that they require sacrifices to be made. One of these is that of sitting down at the negotiating table with the Palestinians and confronting the issue of creating a Palestinian State, with at least a wide highway connecting the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, as it makes no sense to maintain these two regions separate. In the event that agreement is not possible, the parties should “wash their hands” of the issue, requesting that an international court decide, via arbitration, the future boundaries between the two states, because everyone has had enough of blood, anguish and suffering. With regard to the return of Palestinian refugees - thousands of them, crowded together in camps scattered throughout the Arab world - a possible proposal would be that of compensating each displaced Palestinian family and asking the UN to provide a large area (in Africa, for example) where such Palestinians could settle and prosper. I vouch that, in a few decades, this “second Palestine”, perhaps African, would be able to attain an equal standing, in terms of progress, with the Israel of Netanyahu, already deceased and remembered with hatred or affectionately missed, depending on his behavior from this time onwards. And Africa would profit from this.
I remembered Africa in the above suggestion because if the Zionist Movement had accepted the offer made by the British in 1903 to install the Jewish State in a region that then corresponded to Uganda (currently Kenya), with a relatively mild climate - an offer refused on the grounds of wild animals and the proximity of African tribes - Israel would have become a respected and tranquil power, rather than a hated one. I do not know whether the mass transfer of Palestinians would be possible at the present time, although virtually uninhabited lands exist that are capable of providing a home for new nations.
What is the difference between Hamas and the Palestinian National Authority? The latter, weary of fighting, became resigned to accepting the existence of Israel. It only wants to be a state, with the sovereign status enjoyed by other states. Hamas, on the other hand, found it difficult to “swallow” expulsion of the Palestinians by the “intruders” and, for this reason, does not accept the State of Israel. Ousting the “intruders” has become an impossible and impractical option. Even less so, an inhuman massacre of Homeric proportions, which would never even come to occur, given the economic, military, nuclear and political might of Israel. Hamas needs to convince itself of this evident reality, accept the real world and do the only thing possible: claim reasonable compensation for the displaced, and ask the UN for sufficient space where Palestinian refugees could settle, prosper and subsequently constitute a state.
If the European Union is able to designate billions of euros in order to save Greek finances, and the USA billions of dollars with a view to saving American banks and industries, with a much smaller amount of cash it would be possible to “acquire” a more or less suitable area in some continent, for settlement by the new “errant Jews” who currently answer to the name of “Palestinian refugees”. Hamas might consider this to be unjust, but it needs to be convinced that perfect Justice does not exist in any part of the planet.
Think about this, Mr. Netanyahu, and strive to leave your good name on the Earth before being consumed by worms. Save the small critters from indigestion. Your biography could still be augmented, transforming you into a true statesman. And please, Mr. President Barack Obama, think of American relief when the great wound that contaminates the Middle East, and which could spread to other areas, is finally healed. Once the principal source of rancor - the Palestinian situation - has disappeared, terrorism, if it persists, will be the mere activity of gangsters, much more easily controlled.
(5-6-10)
