Israel and the rest of the world seem to be speaking dissonant moral languages.
--Yossi Klein Halevi, Fellow at hte Sahlom Hartman Institute, Jerusalem
This morning's Wall Street Journal has a strategic policy piece by Klein Halevi, explaining the boycott issues from an Israeli viewpoint. The opinion piece is entitled appropriately, Israelis Wonder: Has the World Lost its Mind? The author distinguishes the Israeli outcry, which cuts across political lines, from the outrage expressed abroad. The appeal by anti-Israelis to the world's conscience forces Israel to choose between self-defense and acceptance by the nations. Israelis of all political perspectives assume that Israel was right to stop the flotilla, and for that matter, to maintain its sieg on Hamas-led Gaza.
The Israeli concern is over tactics, not morality. One Israeli liberal columnist wrote, "It's not enough to be right, one also needs to be smart."
For a background approach to the issue, David Makovsky (see his blog post of June 3) of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy lays out the issues in the Christian Science Monitor.
- In 2005 when Israel withdrew from Gaza, Israelis were told that if they stopped occupying foreign land, they would be more secure.
- Between 2005 and 2008, the Israelis absorbed 3,335 rockets aimed at their homes, and border towns became uninhabitable.
- There was never a single UN Security Council session to discuss those attacks.
- The blockade was necessary to curb the rocket attacks.
- Hamas has shown itself untrustworthy for lifting of blockade.
- The Financial Times reported a supply glut of goods smuggled through the tunnels, not catatastrophe.
- Egypt has become Israel's silent partner in supporting the blockade. It refuses to open up its Rafah border crossing to Hamas. The Arabs have no trust for Hamas or Hezbollah.
Makovsky concludes that while there is an argument to be made about the terms of the blockade, that shouldn't be confused with normalizing the role of Hamas itself.