 | By Miriam Shaviv
June 3, 2010 | Share |
A confused editorial, I think, in the Times today.
The bulk of the leader is spent explaining why the passengers on the Mavi Marmara were a "lynch mob" who were clearly out to kill Israeli soldiers, there not to deliver aid but to gain publicity. It also asks some difficult questions of the Turkish government and its role in this episode (though in my opinion, not difficult enough).
So far, so good - in fact, so refreshing.
What I have a problem with is the first and last paragraphs. They read:
The Israeli raid on a flotilla bound for Gaza, which left at least nine dead, was a disaster. It was poorly conceived, incompetently executed and entirely counter-productive.
Israel has a right to defend its borders, but also a responsibility towards its citizens and friends to remain a beacon of civilised conduct in the Middle East. When it fails in this responsibility, the problem is not its alone. Israel’s friends believe in Israel because they believe in the ideals that it represents. On Monday morning, Israel fell short of these ideals....
None of this is to provide an apologia for Israel’s cack-handed actions, or to diminish the tragedy of those who died. But Israel’s greatest mistake, in behaving as a villain, has been to create an environment in which its enemies can be portrayed as not villainous at all. The truth is very different.
The problem is that the Times has singularly failed to show how, exactly, Israel behaved as a "villain", failing to show "civilised conduct". The the operation was "Poorly conceived, incompetently executed and entirely counter-productive" - yes. But how exactly does this add up to uncivilised conduct? To some kind of moral stain?
This is nothing more than a slur, which The Times (whose Israel editorials are often extremely balanced and fair) has lazily recycled from conventional wisdom.
The question I would like the Times (and all those accusing Israel of immoral behaviour on deck) to answer is this. After spending over 40 minutes being stabbed, thrown off decks, confronted with explosive devices, hit with metal rods, having their guns snatched and turned against them, seeing their helicopter tethered to the deck - being, as the Times itself admitted, met by a "lynch mob", and in fear of their lives, what exactly did it expect the Israeli soldiers to do?
Joshua18
Thu, 06/03/2010 - 16:25
Rate this:
"what exactly did it expect the Israeli soldiers to do?"
What they generally expect Jews to do: die.
Jews walking into a gas chamber is an event worthy of tears and memorials. Jews fighting back is an abomination.
Paul Mirengoff over at Power Line has got it exactly right: better by far to be hated than dead. In fact it is impossible for Israelis to win the battle for hearts and minds and also remain alive. An extract from Paul's article:
"To what extent, then, should Israel factor PR concerns -- which these days necessarily amount mostly to the desire to avoid condemnation -- into its strategic decisions? The historical record strongly suggests that Israel should largely ignore PR when deciding how to protect itself.
For example, Israel became less safe when it pulled out of Gaza -- a move that was popular with the Bush administration. It subsequently became more safe when, in a move that brought the same kind of harsh condemnation on display now, it invaded Gaza and waged a successful war there. Afterwards, the dogs barked for a little while longer, but the caravan moved on.
Israel became less safe following its offer in 2000 to permit the creation of a Palestinian state on a very substantial portion of the West Bank. The Clinton adminisration was pleased by the offer. However, it was followed by, and arguably helped precipitate, a bloody intifada. Israel subsequently became more safe when it launched a widely-condemned military action (Jenin and all that) in the West Bank that helped break the back of the intifada. The end of terrorism inside Israel was well worth the short-term PR hit.
Israel's enemies tout PR wins not because they are valuable, but because they are usually the only victories attainable. Israel seems to understand this, even if its friendly critics don't.
To hold its own in the PR wars, Israel must adopt, at least to some extent, the narrative of those from whom it seeks decent publicity. But that narrative casts Palestinians as victims of Israel, or at least of Israel's creation. To allow a narrative that casts Israel in the role of the villain to affect Israeli security policy would be a step on the road to national suicide."
http://tinyurl.com/2dlk2q4