Why has Israel disarmed itself in the battle for world opinion?

One would be perfectly justified in writing an entire column attacking the way Israel has been misrepresented over its fatal raid on the flotilla bound for Gaza on Monday. One could point out that the IHH, which was in charge of the Turkish boat which was attacked, has well-attested links to terrorist organisations. It was spoiling for a fight: some of those on board spoke of their desire for “martyrdom”. One could add that the men who fought the Israeli commandos were strangely described by ABC as “humanitarians with a few knives”. Chanting anti-Jewish battle-cries, they stabbed an Israeli soldier before, it seems, the Israelis had shot anyone. The same “humanitarians”, judging by fairly clear film of the incident, tried to club Israelis to death. There was no need, one might go on, for humanitarian aid to travel by these means, since the Israelis were prepared to deliver it themselves, as they regularly deliver aid of their own to Gaza. The purpose of the Gaza blockade, now roundly condemned by world leaders, was originally backed up by international agreement. Various forces, including the Royal Navy, said they would help interdict supplies of arms to Gaza: it could not be permitted to become, in effect, an Iranian port. And one could remind the world that the reason Gaza is an independent entity at all is that, in 2005, Israel withdrew from it.Finally, one might note sarcastically that world opinion’s instantaneous outrage against Israel’s action contrasts sharply with its marked reluctance to rush to judgment when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship, or, most notably, when Iran takes another step towards building its Bomb. But I shall say no more about any of these things, because what friends of Israel need to say at this point is that this mess is Israel’s fault. I do not mean, as so many do, that Israel is wicked and aggressive, let alone – as is often, almost obscenely, claimed – that its actions replicate the behaviour of apartheid South Africa or even of Nazis in the Holocaust. I mean that Israel is at fault because, by failing to define the nature of the conflict, it is allowing such views to win. In fewer than 10 days’ time, nearly 40 years after the event itself, and 13 years and £191 million after it was established, the Saville Inquiry on Bloody Sunday in Londonderry will report. This saga is a terrible lesson in what happens when the wrong narrative is allowed to capture the public consciousness. This week’s event, perhaps prompted by a similar, ill-disciplined impulse to teach bad people a lesson, may well be used against Israel at the bar of world opinion 40 years hence. Things could have been so different if Israel had set the stage. These convoys, after all, are not new. Their propaganda for extremism is well known, but Israeli intelligence, so expert at tracing the networks of actual violence, seems strangely weak in following their wider ideological background, so the world was not told nearly enough about the people on board. Weeks ago, Israel could have been warning about the flotilla. It could have lobbied populations and governments about the unholy alliance between human rights groups and Islamist fanatics. If military intervention really was necessary, Israel could surely have found technical ways to immobilise a boat without armed men having to shin down a rope. When the Israelis complain that they were attacked by people who claim they are peaceful, they have a point, but, given that they never believed they were peaceful, why were these toughest of tough commandos apparently taken by surprise? What surprised them? Israel is understandably obsessed with security, but its greatest security lies ultimately not in the Israeli Defence Forces, but in political warfare. In the Six Day War of 1967, what swept all before it was the combination of military might and a story the world wanted to hear, that of David beating Goliath. Most of the world is not deeply interested in what happens in Israel, and probably does not want to be deluged with legalistic defences of particular actions. What it wants is a clear, calm, repeated case. It is a case – aimed more at public opinion than at foreign ministries – about freedom, democracy, a Western way of life and the need for the whole of the free world to fight terrorism. Sometimes you hear Israelis say: “It doesn’t matter what we say. The whole world is against us.” You can see why they say it, for they are indeed unfairly treated. But when they say it, they are uttering a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they won’t say what needs saying, no one else will say it for them.