In the previous post I wrote that the Obama Administration and Netanyahu’s government are so determined to make their seventh meeting successful, that it was planned up to the last detail and defined by the diplomatic sources as a “success” even before it happened. The atmosphere was so reassuring that this sentence - “Indeed, the White House is so resolved to make things different this time, that nothing could spoil it. Except, perhaps, another construction project in East Jerusalem” – was just mere lip service to the usual Middle Eastern suspicion. But the terrible surprises that occurred outside of our region exceeded any sick imagination. As one Israeli diplomat defined it: “It started at 1 o’clock am as a nightmare, and indeed turned to be a catastrophe”. So I feel a bit of a fool, but I am in good company. Obviously the "Free Gaza" flotilla didn’t seem to be a looming crisis to the Israeli delegation in Canada.
A White House source underscored that Netanyahu was in no way pressured to cancel his visit. In the nervous talks between the officials, they were checking the possibility for the leaders to bring the meeting forward for Monday – but it was technically impossible – President Obama was in Illinois, attending (or trying to attend, depending on the bad weather) memorial day services in the state. Yet finally it was concluded that under the current circumstances it would be a bad photo-op.
The reactions in the U.S. were diverse. The Administration was extremely cautious not to re-evoke the ghosts, after its officials spent a couple of the recent weeks trying to moderate the concerns of the Jewish community in the U.S. that no one is after Israel. In his phone call with Netanyahu, Obama said he “understood the Prime Minister's decision to return immediately to Israel to deal with today's events” and the two agreed to reschedule their meeting “at the first opportunity”. Usually words in such concise readouts are chosen carefully – the mentioning the fact that many of the wounded were treated in Israeli hospitals probably was not coincidental, as well as the final phrase – “the President also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events as soon as possible.”
The U.S. State Department's reaction, which arrived in the evening, didn’t include any condemnation either – it said that they regret the tragic loss of life – and were “working to ascertain the facts, and expect that the Israeli government will conduct a full and credible investigation”.
But this statement was followed shortly by these words: “However, Hamas’ interference with international assistance shipments and work of nongovernmental organizations, and its use and endorsement of violence, complicates efforts in Gaza. Mechanisms exist for the transfer of humanitarian assistance to Gaza by governments and groups that wish to do so. These mechanisms should be used for the benefit of all those in Gaza”. And ultimately, they conclude, “this incident underscores the need to move ahead quickly with negotiations that can lead to a comprehensive peace in the region”.
The media in the U.S. was mostly preoccupied with Memorial Day events – but the botched raid on the ship in the Gaza-bound flotilla was still covered pretty extensively.
The Israeli embassy was “besieged” in the afternoon by protesters who demanded to expel the Israeli ambassador out of the country, to cut U.S. aid to Israel, and to stop as they called its “funding Israel’s piracy”. Later on the demonstration moved to the White House.
U.S. Jewish organizations were divided in their opinion – those from the center and to the right were quick to issue statements echoing the official Israeli position casting responsibility on the organizers of the “provocation” and stating the linkage between them and the international terrorist organizations. The leadership of the Orthodox Union expressed its support for the efforts of the Israeli government and IDF to assure Israel's security. “So long as Gaza is ruled by Hamas, a terrorist group sworn to Israel's destruction, Israel is entitled to treat it as enemy territory and enforce a blockade against it."
The Reform movement aligned with Israel as well: “We note that the Hamas government, which is committed to Israel’s destruction and which has long been responsible for attacks against Israeli forces and civilian centers, cannot expect to have open borders. We also note that humanitarian aid sent to Gaza in the past has often been used as a cover for delivering weapons and military supplies. In light of these factors, Israel has responded as a sovereign nation must, by exercising her right to self-defense”, said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism. “We urge the Government of the United States to work with Israel in addressing Israel’s security concerns while examining as well the plight of those living in Gaza who require additional humanitarian assistance. Recent events underscore the urgent need for real progress in addressing both sets of concerns”.
J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami released was more critical: “This shocking outcome of an effort to bring humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza is in part a consequence of the ongoing, counterproductive Israeli blockade of Gaza. J Street has been and continues to be opposed to the blockade - believing that there are better ways to ensure Israel's security and to prevent weapons smuggling than a complete closure of the Gaza Strip. We do not know yet what the impact of today's incident will be on the just-restarted peace process, on Israel's relations with the international community, or on the health of Arab-Jewish relations within Israel itself”.
“Jewish Voice for Peace” condemned “Israel's attack and killing of members of the Freedom Flotilla aiming to bring much needed aid to the besieged Gaza Strip” and urged the American President to “call for an immediate lifting of the siege of Gaza” and suspend military aid to Israel until he can assure the American public that our aid is not used to commit similar abuses”.
Time and an inquiry commission will tell whether it was sinister provocation, bad planning or indeed Netanyahu's bad luck. What is certain for now is that the crisis is far from over, and might have some implications not only for Israel-Turkey relations, the fragile proximity talks and Israel’s image in the world, - but for U.S.-Israel relations as well – especially following the decision at the NPT review conference on Friday that was interpreted in Jerusalem as unfair, and the concerns over the possible outcome of the Security Council meeting. The photo-op, even if it were to take place, could hardly cover up the deep rift between the two sides’ positions - yet Israel's question directed at Obama’s administration: “Do you have my back?” has become more pressing than ever.
