Editorials 2 June 2010

All four editorials are on the Israeli action on the high seas. First the Herald:

Israel can hardly claim to be surprised by the universal international condemnation of its commando raid on ships taking humanitarian aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip.

There is a sad familiarity about the episode, which left at least nine activists dead.

Here, as in last year’s military offensive against Gaza, Israel has reacted with force completely disproportionate to the situation. …

It should be noted that Israel had suggested that the flotilla should offload its 10,000 tonnes of medical and building supplies at the Israeli port of Ashdod before it was handed over to the United Nations for delivery to Gaza.

That was a reasonable compromise. Indeed, if such moderation were pursued, the people of Gaza might come to recognise an alternative to an extremism that, according to Israel, has led Hamas to place a higher emphasis on the securing of arms than the wellbeing of the Palestinian people.

Hamas has no interest in peace or welfare of its people. Its goal is to destory Israel.

The Press:

Like any nation Israel is entitled to defend itself and protect its citizens.

It regards Gaza, controlled by the hardline Hamas organisation, as a major threat to its security. This view is understandable as there is a history of attacks on Israel from Gaza using rockets and other weaponry undoubtedly smuggled into the territory.

These attacks have prompted incursions into Gaza by Israeli soldiers. They are also the rationale for the three-year Israeli and Egyptian blockade which is designed to prevent weapons being smuggled into Gaza amidst genuine aid.

But as is often the case, sympathy for Israel’s security quickly evaporates when it resorts to excessive force. That was so this week when its soldiers stormed aid vessels in the Free Gaza flotilla.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The Dom Post:

Israel believes its problems can be solved with bullets. It is wrong, and deserves the condemnation now raining down on its head for attacking a ship bringing aid to Gaza and killing at least 10 of those aboard.

There is no doubt that the actions of the “Gaza Freedom flotilla” were designed to be provocative and turn the world spotlight on the plight of the Palestinians suffering in Gaza as the result of Israeli-imposed sanctions.

However, it was not “an armada of hate and violence”, as Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Daniel Ayalon, has dubbed it.

Israel must explain why it believed there was no other way of reacting to the flotilla than with an assault launched in international waters in the hours of darkness by a highly trained and – by all accounts – lethally efficient commando unit. It must say why other options to deal with what was a policing problem were not used.

The Dom Post is the most condemnatory of the four editorials.

The ODT:

There should be no doubt, now, about the outcome of the most serious waterborne challenge to Israel’s counterproductive blockade of the Gaza, despite the swamp of propaganda and “spin” from all sides.

People died, many were injured, Israel’s global reputation suffered another public relations defeat, and the people of Gaza continued to be pawns in a hostile diplomatic and strategic contest. …

The Government did make the point, however, that the “situation in Gaza is not sustainable”.

Indeed it is not.

It is deeply regrettable that Israel and Hamas refuse to recognise that reality.

A rational description of Israel’s high seas assault is that it was a severe over-reaction to a situation that could – and should – have been managed in a far more moderate, less assertive manner.

The commandos “slid from helicopters into a violent crowd, which attacked them with sticks.

It’s no wonder the troops opened fire in self-defence,” as one Israeli commentator put it, with more than a trace of irony.

By so doing, he added, “Israel walked straight into the trap that the flotilla organisers set . . .”

If this was really a planned effort to meet and contain the flotilla, it must be counted a tactical and military failure; an opportunity for Israel to earn praise ended in fiasco.

This is the reality. The Israeli Defence Forces should have been better prepared for violence and rather than helicopter troops on board would have been better to disable the vessels, user water cannons etc before boarding.