Zcom_simple




Uriavnery

Kill A Turk And Rest



Source: Gush Shalom

Change Text Size a- | A+


On the high seas, outside territorial waters, the ship was stopped by the navy. The commandos stormed it. Hundreds of people on the deck resisted, the soldiers used force. Some of the passengers were killed, scores injured. The ship was brought into harbor, the passengers were taken off by force. The world saw them walking on the quay, men and women, young and old, all of them worn out, one after another, each being marched between two soldiers…

 

The ship was called “Exodus 1947”. It left France in the hope of breaking the British blockade, which was imposed to prevent ships loaded with Holocaust survivors from reaching the shores of Palestine. If it had been allowed to reach the country, the illegal immigrants would have come ashore and the British would have sent them to detention camps in Cyprus, as they had done before. Nobody would have taken any notice of the episode for more than two days.

 

But the person in charge was Ernest Bevin, a Labour Party leader, an arrogant, rude and power-loving British minister. He was not about to let a bunch of Jews dictate to him. He decided to teach them a lesson the entire world would witness. “This is a provocation!” he exclaimed, and of course he was right. The main aim was indeed to create a provocation, in order to draw the eyes of the world to the British blockade.

 

What followed is well known: the episode dragged on and on, one stupidity led to another, the whole world sympathized with the passengers. But the British did not give in and paid the price. A heavy price.

 

Many believe that the “Exodus” incident was the turning point in the struggle for the creation of the State of Israel. Britain collapsed under the weight of international condemnation and decided to give up its mandate over Palestine. There were, of course, many more weighty reasons for this decision, but the “Exodus” proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

 

I AM not the only one who was reminded of this episode this week. Actually, it was almost impossible not to be reminded of it, especially for those of us who lived in Palestine at the time and witnessed it.

 

There are, of course, important differences. Then the passengers were Holocaust survivors, this time they were peace activists from all over the world. But then and now the world saw heavily armed soldiers brutally attack unarmed passengers, who resist with everything that comes to hand, sticks and bare hands. Then and now it happened on the high seas – 40 km from the shore then, 65 km now.

 

In retrospect, the British behavior throughout the affair seems incredibly stupid. But Bevin was no fool, and the British officers who commanded the action were not nincompoops. After all, they had just finished a World War on the winning side.

 

If they behaved with complete folly from beginning to end, it was the result of arrogance, insensitivity and boundless contempt for world public opinion.

 

Ehud Barak is the Israeli Bevin. He is not a fool, either, nor are our top brass. But they are responsible for a chain of acts of folly, the disastrous implications of which are hard to assess. Former minister and present commentator Yossi Sarid called the ministerial “committee of seven”, which decides on security matters, “seven idiots” – and I must protest. It is an insult to idiots.

 

THE PREPARATIONS for the flotilla went on for more than a year. Hundreds of e-mail messages went back and forth. I myself received many dozens. There was no secret. Everything was out in the open.

 

There was a lot of time for all our political and military institutions to prepare for the approach of the ships. The politician consulted. The soldiers trained. The diplomats reported. The intelligence people did their job.

 

Nothing helped. All the decisions were wrong from the first moment to this moment. And it’s not yet the end.

 

The idea of a flotilla as a means to break the blockade borders on genius. It placed the Israeli government on the horns of a dilemma – the choice between several alternatives, all of them bad. Every general hopes to get his opponent into such a situation.

 

The alternatives were:

 

To let the flotilla reach Gaza without hindrance. The cabinet secretary supported this option. That would have led to the end of the blockade, because after this flotilla more and larger ones would have come.

 

To stop the ships in territorial waters, inspect their cargo and make sure they were not carrying weapons or “terrorists”, then let them continue on their way. That would have aroused some vague protests in the world but upheld the principle of a blockade.
To capture them on the high seas and bring them to Ashdod, risking a face-to-face battle with activists on board.

 

As our governments have always done, when faced with the choice between several bad alternatives, the Netanyahu government chose the worst.

 

Anyone who followed the preparations as reported in the media could have foreseen that they would lead to people being killed and injured. One does not storm a Turkish ship and expect cute little girls to present one with flowers. The Turks are not known as people who give in easily.

 

The orders given to the forces and made public included the three fateful words: “at any cost”. Every soldier knows what these three terrible words mean. Moreover, on the list of objectives, the consideration for the passengers appeared only in third place, after safeguarding the safety of the soldiers and fulfilling the task.

 

If Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, the Chief of Staff and the commander of the navy did not understand that this would lead to killing and wounding people, then it must be concluded - even by those who were reluctant to consider this until now – that they are grossly incompetent. They must be told, in the immortal words of Oliver Cromwell to Parliament: “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

 

THIS EVENT points again to one of the most serious aspects of the situation: we live in a bubble, in a kind of mental ghetto, which cuts us off and prevents us from seeing another reality, the one perceived by the rest of the world. A psychiatrist might judge this to be the symptom of a severe mental problem.

 

The propaganda of the government and the army tells a simple story: our heroic soldiers, determined and sensitive, the elite of the elite, descended on the ship in order “to talk” and were attacked by a wild and violent crowd. Official spokesmen repeated again and again the word “lynching”.

 

On the first day, almost all the Israeli media accepted this. After all, it is clear that we, the Jews, are the victims. Always. That applies to Jewish soldiers, too. True, we storm a foreign ship at sea, but turn at once into victims who have no choice but to defend ourselves against violent and incited anti-Semites.

 

It is impossible not to be reminded of the classic Jewish joke about the Jewish mother in Russia taking leave of her son, who has been called up to serve the Czar in the war against Turkey. “Don’t overexert yourself’” she implores him, “Kill a Turk and rest. Kill another Turk and rest again…”

 

“But mother,” the son interrupts, “What if the Turk kills me?”

 

“You?” exclaims the mother, “But why? What have you done to him?”

 

To any normal person, this may sound crazy. Heavily armed soldiers of an elite commando unit board a ship on the high seas in the middle of the night, from the sea and from the air – and they are the victims?

 

But there is a grain of truth there: they are the victims of arrogant and incompetent commanders, irresponsible politicians and the media fed by them. And, actually, of the Israeli public, since most of the people voted for this government or for the opposition, which is no different.
The “Exodus” affair was repeated, but with a change of roles. Now we are the British.

 

Somewhere, a new Leon Uris is planning to write his next book, “Exodus 2010”. A new Otto Preminger is planning a film that will become a blockbuster. A new Paul Newman will star in it – after all, there is no shortage of talented Turkish actors.

 

MORE THAN 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson declared that every nation must act with a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind”. Israeli leaders have never accepted the wisdom of this maxim. They adhere to the dictum of David Ben-Gurion: “It is not important what the Gentiles say, it is important what the Jews do.” Perhaps he assumed that the Jews would not act foolishly.

 

Making enemies of the Turks is more than foolish. For decades, Turkey has been our closest ally in the region, much more close than is generally known. Turkey could play, in the future, an important role as a mediator between Israel and the Arab-Muslim world, between Israel and Syria, and, yes, even between Israel and Iran. Perhaps we have succeeded now in uniting the Turkish people against us – and some say that this is the only matter on which the Turks are now united.

 

This is Chapter 2 of “Cast Lead”. Then we aroused most countries in the world against us, shocked our few friends and gladdened our enemies. Now we have done it again, and perhaps with even greater success. World public opinion is turning against us.

 

This is a slow process. It resembles the accumulation of water behind a dam. The water rises slowly, quietly, and the change is hardly noticeable. But when it reaches a critical level, the dam bursts and the disaster is upon us. We are steadily approaching this point.

 

“Kill a Turk and rest,” the mother says in the joke. Our government does not even rest. It seems that they will not stop until they have made enemies of the last of our friends.

 

(Parts of this article were published in Ma’ariv, Israel’s second largest newspaper.)

 

689346

Comment

By Fuller, Roslyn at Jun 07, 2010 10:10 AM

Excellent article.

Reply this comment


Person

Selective history.

By Dodds, Jim at Jun 06, 2010 16:49 PM

 An even more arrogant British politician than Ernest Bevin was Arthur Balfour, a strong supporter of creating a Jewish state in Palestine. It has been said that Balfour created Israel in a single paragraph followed by his signature. Balfour was no more loved by the Irish, whom he forbade to gather in groups in their own homeland, than he is to this day by Palestinians but Zionists rather care for him. There were many more potential Jewish immigrants to Palestine than those who survived the holocaust unless it is considered that all Jews survived the holocaust. Among the new arrivals were those who joined  Irgun Svia Leumi and the Stern Gang, created to attack the British in Palestine before, during and after the Second World War. What they wanted they would have no matter the cost and the cost to British civilians,  police and army were beatings, torture and murder. That cost continues to be charged to this day in Gaza. A cost also incurred by a flotilla of ships carrying nothing more than peace makers and essential supplies with nine people paying the full price in the process. Afterwards those of us wanting news and who had the stomach for it  were offered the opportunity to look Israeli spokespeople in the eye as they blatantly  lied to us. I suppose there are more unpleasant ways of disrespecting people than to arrogantly lie to their faces and perhaps one of them might be to twist history to suit purpose. The contempt shown by Israel for the rest of the human race presents in the PR they prefer to truth but most obviously in their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza. Perhaps what Israel fears most is the re-emergence of a Palestinian Irgun Svia Leumi and/or a Stern Gang. There are always the Zionists for an optional threat and they can never be wrong, Jewish or Christian, so stand by Israel, like the rest of us for sure you will surely reap as you sew. 

Reply this comment


Person

Turkey

By notme, at Jun 06, 2010 07:05 AM

Israel likes to talk about like its fought the entire arab world.  But its never fought Turkey.  Israel's wars have been against Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, with countries like Iraq and Libya throwing in some troops from the back row.  But Israel has never fought Turkey.

Turkey is bigger and tougher than anyone Israel has fought.  The Turks have a reputation as durable, tough soldiers.  Especially when on the defensive.  Ask the British about Galipoli and Kut.  Since then, they are Nato armed and even worse for Israel, Nato trained.  Its in training and tactics and generalship that Israel won its '67 and '73 wars.   A war between a Nato equiped and trained Turkish army and an Israeli army that came off second to Hezbollah not that long ago might look a whole lot different than anything Israel has yet seen.

Turkey might well be the one country in the region that could look at Israel and say "Nah, they don't look that tough."  Turkey likely isn't very afraid of Israel.  Wary and aware, yes ... afraid, no.

Mr. Avnery was not understating when he called angering the Turks a very foolish move.

And strategically, it might well force the Americans into an equally stupid move.  Turkey could be invaluable to the US and NATO in conflicts between the west and islam.  A Turkey at war with Israel might well ask its NATO allies for help.  In case any NATO nation is attacked, the other NATO nations are supposed to come to their aid.  Turkey could already argue that its been attacked by an act of war by Israel.  Seriously.  Internal divisions between the Turk military and the Turk government mean it probably won't.  But such divisions can disappear when a country rallies for war with an enemy.  Countries have gone to war over acts like this.  Think War of 1812 and Remember the Lusitainia.  A blockade has always been regarded as an act of war, and an attack on a country's merchantship certainly is.

And, as crazy as the Israelis are right now, if they even thought that they might go to war with Turkey, they'd likely try to strike first.  Hitting suddenly with surprise and maybe not a declaration of war is the Israeli way.  Think 1967.  Especially if the Israel military feels the Turks are a tough foe and decide that they need the early advantage of such a surprise attack.

Except, think what that does to NATO.  Nothing about this US government says it would do anything but support Israel.  But that's not true for Europe.  How many European countries might decide to honor their defensive treaty with Turkey if Israel launches a surprise attack?  Think for a minute about what that does to Europe.  What does it do to the Lib Dems in Britain?  Germany's back to conservative rule, but huge parts of that population would want to support the Turks.  Especially since there's a large Turkish ex-pat community in Germany.  So, how many NATO countries would support Turkey?  Does that split NATO for good?

And, Israel's supply lines to the USA look very different when Turkey's the enemy.  In previous wars, the US resupplied Israel from Europe across the Med.  If Turkey and maybe other NATO powers are the countries fighting Israel, that may not be possible.  Would the US risk war by flying cargo planes into Israel with the Turkish air force threatening those flights?

Of course, Obama could decide not to push it there.  There would seem to be cases where the way to keep NATO together might be to back Turkey against Israel.  And remember, you've already got the US military questioning the worth of Israel as an ally, or certainly 2012 Presidential candidate General Petreus has been.  If Turkey and Israel go to war, the wise strategic move for the US might well be to back Turkey and keep NATO whole.  But would Obama have the political guts to declare political war on AIPAC at home?  Empires tend to fall when the rulers have the arrogance to believe that they can act foolishly abroad to satisfy political goals at home.

The chances for foolish acts by leaders isn't nearly over in this crisis.  And Obama's turn might be coming up.  Getting Turkey involved leads to some scenarios where he might have to decide just exactly how much Israel is worth to the US? And to him politically? And whether his political future is more important than America making the right move strategically?

At least we have VP's for a distraction. We already know he doesn't think that the machine gunning down of 70 humanitarians on a relief mission was a big deal.  We can always get some enjoyment out of watching just how long it takes the formere Senator from MasterCard to start to figure out that this could be a really big deal.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Turkey

By Vojvodic, Ozren at Jun 07, 2010 19:32 PM

A savvy analysis but going to far with imagination. Turkey's posturing is a PR stunt for local consumption, perhaps also to score some with the Arab world. Some obligatory rhetoric is needed to satisfy the anger of its populace. They are certainly aware that they still have too much invested in Israel-alliance, most importantly the same patron.

And if we really venture in crazy scenarios of military conflict between Turkey and Israel how do we put Israel's nuclear warheads out of calculation? As Norman Finkelstein said the other day, roughly, "Israel is not only pretending to be a lunatic state but it actually is a lunatic state" with no shortage of dr. Strangeloves in the leading positions.

And Uri's article is truly exellent.

Reply this comment

Loading_border