Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

In the Past

Israel’s mistake is trying to resolve new political problems with outdated military solutions

Print Email
The front pages of several European newspapers this morning. (Thomas Coex/AFP/Getty Images)
Related Content

Israel Bites the Bait

Assessing the fallout from yesterday’s raid on the ‘Freedom Flotilla’

Waking up on Monday morning to the startling headlines depicting Israel’s disastrous sea raid off the Gaza coast, the first thing I instinctively did was think back over the years. It has been quite a while since Israel attempted such a brazen military operation. And while I initially experienced flashbacks of the IDF’s much-celebrated commando raids in Beirut, Tunisia, or Entebbe, I eventually realized just how much things change: This time, Israel’s daring military prowess blew up in its face.

In today’s technologically permeated battlefield, what mattered was not whether the Israeli military action was right—it was—but whether it appeared to be right. In this respect, the moment the first images were transmitted of Israeli helicopters descending onto the Gaza-bound flotilla’s flag ship, the Mavi Marmara, the disproportionate portrait of force had already decided the battle’s outcome, against Israel. All of which was obvious, even before the raid began: Despite knowing that many of the flotilla’s participants were desperately seeking a confrontation with the IDF in order to create a televised imbroglio that would help catapult the plight of the Gaza Strip onto the international agenda, the Israeli government gave the activists, in a tragic sense, exactly what they wanted.

In the immediate aftermath of the events, commentators began lambasting the Israeli government’s public-relations efforts—without taking into account the fact that there really is no other side to this story. Under international law, Israel’s attempt to prevent an internationally recognized terrorist organization like Hamas from smuggling in arms that would endanger Israel’s security would certainly qualify as justifiable. But there was never any way to translate through military action such moral and legal justification into political results. In other words, while the ends of the operation were defendable, its legitimacy was instantly undercut by the deadly means.

And so the question now hovering in many minds is: What was Israel thinking? Well, it’s possible that it wasn’t thinking but daydreaming. The Israeli poet Yitzhak Laor recently argued that “Israel does not understand the new world.” The problem, however, appears to be far worse: Israel has apparently chosen to stay behind and live in the old one. Stuck in a self-imposed Groundhog Day reality, Israeli policymakers perpetually seek to resolve the political problems of the present with the anachronistic military solutions of the past. What they fail to understand in doing so—as the recent deadly encounter at sea has illustrated all too well—is that the solutions that proved themselves so beneficial only several decades ago are increasingly becoming destructive to Israel’s national security interests today.


Let’s begin with a clarification: Anyone who actually cares to examine the videos from Monday’s deadly encounter at sea and navigate the jungle of misinformation in search of truth will eventually discover that many of the self-proclaimed “peaceful” protesters who awaited the Israeli soldiers’ arrival with clubs, rocks, and steel bars in their hands were anything but peaceful. Those who furthermore wish to distinguish between fact and fiction might also notice that the rifles with which the Israeli commandos are armed were actually paintball guns—not M-16s.

And yet all of these facts have essentially become irrelevant. In today’s constantly evolving battlefield of public opinion, Israel can no longer act now and explain later, as it used to do during the Cold War, when its commandos would storm into upscale Beirut neighborhoods at night, assassinate PLO terrorists, and be safely back in their beds by morning. Armed with camera phones connected instantly by satellite to YouTube and Facebook, and staffed by activists ready to inundate the blogosphere with biased accounts, the media-savvy participants in the pro-Palestinian flotilla made sure the Israelis would have to defend their military operation before it had ever begun.

Technology has provided the protesters on the flotilla the opportunity to counterbalance the Israeli superiority of force with their own advantage in the dissemination of raw information. While it may be true that an increasing amount of television viewers and Internet surfers are less susceptible to crude misinformation, timing is everything in this conflict; by the time Israel’s deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, presented the Israeli side of things to foreign journalists in his morning-after press briefing, the initial images selectively shot, edited, and distributed by the protesters had already been circulating the web for three hours. Most viewers are prone to a limited consumption of news, and the first few images mark the storyline. This essentially meant that all the Israelis could do was try to play catch-up.


This technological disadvantage in its PR duel with the Palestinian supporters is not the only factor that should have discouraged the Netanyahu government from thinking it could resolve a political challenge through military action. The tenuous nature of Israel’s international standing should have been as pivotal in dissuading it from attacking the flotilla.

David Ben-Gurion famously declared that it does not matter what the goyim think; it matters only what the Jews do. While such reasoning may have been credible decades ago, when the imperious likes of FDR, Winston Churchill, and Charles De Gaulle were at the helm of the free world, the increasingly participatory nature of western democratic politics means that what the “goyim” think these days directly dictates what their governments eventually do. In this regards, we are already sensing just how disastrous the diplomatic repercussions may turn out to be for Israel. In the initial 48 hours after the incident, Israel suffered a U.N. Security Council condemnation, received repeated international calls to completely lift the blockade of Gaza (the very act that this entire fiasco was meant to prevent), and further compromised its already shaky relationships with the Obama Administration and the European Union.

However, the most important diplomatic casualty from this affair may be Jerusalem’s relationship with Ankara. Relations between Israel and Turkey, whose government had sanctioned and supported this contentious sea voyage from its inception, are understandably at their lowest point since the two countries enacted diplomatic relations more than 61 years ago. The incident seriously threatens to sever longstanding, multibillion-dollar trade and tourism ties, but it also poses an existential threat to an immensely critical strategic relationship that with the exception of the Jerusalem-Washington alliance may be Israel’s most important.

With so few allies in such a hostile region, Israel’s strategic cooperation with Turkey has always served as a tacit bulwark against any hegemonic aspirations that the Syrian-Iranian-Hezbollah axis may have presented. But this latest incident, which has already inflamed the Turkish public and sent scores of people into the streets in violent protest against Israel, may prove to be the tipping point in an already strained relationship and could help push Ankara firmly into the camp of Israel’s nemeses.

It remains a plausible assumption that Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan orchestrated this affair. After all, his enthusiastic endorsement of the flotilla’s voyage can be interpreted as yet another of his many recent ploys to consolidate his standing as a prominent figure within the global Islamic community. Erdogan may not be a fan of Israel, but countless members of his country’s political, military, economic, and intellectual elite still cherish the historic relationship with Israel and find it much easier to identify with its liberal-democratic ideals than with the religious radicalism and political authoritarianism of their own Arab neighbors. In the wake of this latest event however, those moderates may now be forced to rethink their sympathies.


Could Israel have handled this military raid turned diplomatic fiasco any differently? Yes, by simply letting the flotilla pass through.

In any rational cost-benefit analysis that should have been made before the military option was selected, the potential cost of a violent confrontation with the flotilla’s multinational passenger body far outweighs any modest deterrence benefits reaped by not letting it reach Gaza. Such a tactical victory in other words should have been considered as Pyrrhic at best, since it would thoroughly be dwarfed by the strategic ramifications that could arise from the worst-case scenario in which the high-seas confrontation actually turns deadly—a scenario that ultimately played out.

As the initial investigation of the ships’ cargo has already proven, the flotilla was indeed carrying humanitarian aid and not contraband or arms (which was unlikely, given the highly publicized voyage). Considering then the relatively harmless implications of a symbolic act of solidarity between a bunch of politically irrelevant radical yahoos and the pariah Hamas government, one can’t help but feel that if only Israel had allowed the ships to get through, the combustible showdown would have deflated within hours.

But if Israel was indeed so adamant about preventing the flotilla’s arrival in Gaza, one cannot help but wonder why some other less-confrontational options were not implemented instead. For instance, the Israeli naval commandos Shayetet 13 are renowned for their underwater sabotage skills. Could Israel not have attempted to neutralize the convoy’s propeller engines? Or alternatively, why did the navy not enact some kind of aggressive maneuvering that would have forced the flotilla to halt or pushed it drastically off course? The Israeli government was either too gung-ho to confront the convoy or too unimaginative to locate alternative solutions to brute force for stopping it.


The Israeli press, with its ingrained sensationalism, has already dubbed the affair “a tragedy at sea.” Unfortunately, with the exception of the soldiers irresponsibly sent in on a mission they were ill equipped to accomplish, there is not a trace of genuine tragedy on Israel’s part. Tragedy, after all, requires the intervention of fate, chance, and design to prevent us mortals from envisioning the results of our actions. In its fateful decision to raid the Gaza-bound convoy, however, Israel preferred to abide by the same anachronistic military actions that had served it so well in the past, instead of seeking innovative solutions more commensurate with the delicate nature of its international standing. In doing so, it brought upon itself the disastrous political consequences with which it may very well now have to grapple for months if not years to come.

Many of the pro-Palestinian activists on board the ships were radicals who came looking for a fight. The Israeli government, in one of its most self-destructive decisions in recent memory, gave them exactly what they wanted. And while it could be argued that Israeli soldiers arrived with too little force as opposed to too much, in its decision to engage the flotilla, Israel essentially sat down to a game of poker with two of its cards showing. Knowing that the IDF would never randomly open fire on them or dare sink their ships, the protesters were able to call the Israeli bluff and lure the poorly equipped and outnumbered commandos onto their ships. By storming the convoy without the necessary firepower to properly subdue it, Israel foolishly forced itself into a situation from which there was no real way to emerge with a winning hand.

Yoav Fromer is a New York-based journalist and a former columnist for Maariv.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Emre Yigit says:

I don’t doubt Israel’s right to defend itself.

However, international law is not in Israel’s favour here. If the ships had been boarded in the military exclusion zone (35 miles) from the coast, maybe, through even then it would gave been a disaster. Just not of this magnitude.

International law and the law of the sea, dating back centuries in the case of the latter, are quite clear: if your ship is boarded in the middle of the ocean – for whatever reason – you can respond with force.

The Israeli attack is patently illegal: it is either piracy (if the Israeli Government can preserve some plausible deniability) or essentially an act of war against foreign shipping.

The politics of the people on board don’t matter. I don’t go shooting people whose political views are inimical to me, nor do you. Nor should the Israelis. As one of the few Turks who dare in these highly-strung days to support Israel in general, I would like to restate my deep dismay at this action.

I enjoy reading Tablet and appreciate its forward-thinking, global worldview. I consider Yoav’s piece an excellent analysis, especially noting the damage to the very important Turkish-Israeli trade and relations. There is one piece of illogic to the argument Yoav makes here: By stating that the commandos carried only paintball guns, he leads the reader to conclude that the nine Gaza flotilla participants dead of gunshot wounds must have committed suicide.
Read my blog on True/Slant:

Isaac Z says:

What is being forgotten in the chorus of the bleating and rage against Israel is that the reason there is a blockade in the first place is because the current occupiers of Gaza, the Terrorist Hamas leadership, has as its primary goal, the elimination of Israel. Plain and simple. Did you forget that Israel absorbed hundreds of rockets attacks for years before it fought back. Do you think for a minute that if the blockade was lifted that Hamas would hesitate to import and then use the deadliest weapons that it could get its hands on? Are you then willing to accept the responsibility of the deaths of dozens, if not hundreds of innocent civilians because of your suggestion to “let the ships in”?

Stan F says:

raid: a rapid surprise attack on an enemy or on premises to commit a crime.

The “peace activists” knew very well that they would not be allowed to reach Gaza – this was not a surprise attack on the part of Israel, and cannot be called a raid. This was a political act on the part of those people in the “flotilla” whose hatred of Israel was stated at the outset of their journey. They should be arrested and tried for the crimes they committed.

Marc R says:

If the Israelis had bombed the propeller, things could have been worse. Israel would have been confronted with the PR nightmare of a boat stranded at sea and left to starve. Or things could have gone worse and the Israelis could have blown a hole in the boat by accident, sinking it.

Dear Yoav —

Thanks for calling me part of “a bunch of politically irrelevant radical yahoos.”

I guess believing in peace and justice makes one a radical yahoo. Hoping for a just resolution to the Palestinian crisis makes one a radical yahoo. Thinking that a blockade that systematically starves 1.5 million people is heinous makes one a radical yahoo.

It’s not Hamas that the peace flotillas are trying to help — it’s the suffering people of Gaza. What, people in Gaza? Real human beings, suffering? I guess thinking that makes me a radical yahoo. Whatever, man.

Sam says:

From Ha’aretz —

“Also unclear is why the soldiers were not given clear orders not to open fire with live ammunition under any circumstances. The IDF has sufficient means for gaining control over rioting mobs using non-lethal force. And if the navy brass informed the decision-makers that there was a reasonable chance that firearms and other weapons would be used and civilians killed, then there is room for doubting the judgment of the policy makers who approved this mission.

Either way, the inefficiency and the panic that overwhelmed the commandos, leading to the deaths of so many, raises worrying questions about their skillfulness and operational capability.”

Strelnikov says:

Which is why you deport whomever was in charge to Siberia!

WHATEVER ISRAEL WOULD.COULD HAVE DONE WOULD NOT HAVE MATTERED…EITHER WAY THE WORLD WOULD HAVE FOUND A WAY TO CRITIZISE IT..IN OTHER WOrds ‘do what I tell you….not what I do” no Country would take what Israel has been exposed to…they would retaliate” CASE IN POINT…….

….. as The US Dept spokesperson Mr. Philip J. Crowley pointed out that though Israel has a right to defend itself, military action would not solve the Middle East conflict, therefore Israel and the Palestinians Authority need to engage in direct negotiations.

Mr. Crowley is absolutely right, consequently I respectfully suggest, a
Complete withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan, Pakistan, AND iRAQ because Military action would not solve the Middle East conflict therefore Obama needs to engage in direct negotiations with Bin Ladin.

The Fromer article is a pastiche of political cliches and rhetorical tricks. What are the real options for Israel? Sometimes, there are really hard choices to be made? I am always interested to read the views of intelligent, well-informed people who can bring some expertise to bear on these difficult questions of national security. For example, I would relish technical information about the feasibility of various techniques of naval interdiction. Short of that, journalistic generalities condemning Israel for errors or “failure of imagination” are not persuasive. The Fromer article really offers no hard information and fails to offer sound policy advice or clear-eyed judgment with regard to the very harsh realities faced by the Israel government. There is the key initial question of whether or not maintenance of the naval blockade is an essential element of Israel’s security. In this respect, Fromer’s “opinion” is perhaps worth as much as any man or woman in the street. If the maintenance of the naval blockade is really not necessary for Israel’s security, there is certainly no need for either me or Fromer to write further because everybody knows that upholding the blockade is exceedingly troublesome and costly in countless ways. However, in the light of the Israel government’s long-standing assessment that the blockade is really required, what does Fromer offer us in terms of concrete alternatives that could have been used to handle the situation? If truth be told, Israel probably came out of this situation fairly well by contrast to what would have been the case had terrorists secretly primed the Turkish ferry to explode at the moment the IDF attempted to stop the ship. The fact is that the scenario that actually unfolded was carefully contrived by the Islamists in the ruling Turkish political party principally to serve the needs of Turkey’s domestic politics. This is a critical consideration in Israel’s favour because a largescale “suicide bombing” was not something that Prime Minister Erdogan’s friends had in mind on this particular occasion. Organized by another group, a future attempt to run the blockade may be subject to other considerations, including willingness to invite largescale human death in the never-ending war against Jews, the Jewish People and Israel.

Bigmo says:

Can you imagaine the US blockading the Sunni triangle in Iraq or blockading the south of Afghanistan because of some rockets that killed less than 10 people in 5 years? Rockets fired by people who have been driven from their land?

Thats becaue Judaism believes a Jewish live is a worth a thousand goyim.

The Talmud (i.e., the Babylonian Talmud) text of Sanhedrin 37a restricts the duty to save life to saving only Jewish lives.

The book on Hebrew censorship, written by Jews themselves (Hesronot Ha-shas), notes that some Talmud texts use the universalist phrase:

“Whoever destroys the life of a single human being…it is as if he had destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single human being …it is as if he had preserved an entire world.”

However, Hesronot Ha-shas points out that these are not the authentic words of the original Talmud.

In other words, the preceding universalist rendering is not the authentic text of the Talmud and thus, for example, this universalist version which Steven Spielberg in his famous movie, Schindler’s List attributed to the Talmud (and which became the motto of the movie on posters and in advertisements), is a hoax and constitutes propaganda intended to give a humanistic gloss to a Talmud which is, in its essence, racist and chauvinist hate literature.

In the authentic, original Talmud text it states that “whoever preserves a single soul of Israel, it is as if he had preserved an entire world” (emphasis supplied). The authentic Talmud text sanctions only the saving of Jewish lives.

5.32(Koran) On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land-


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

In the Past

Israel’s mistake is trying to resolve new political problems with outdated military solutions

More on Tablet:

Obama: Denying Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland is Anti-Semitic

By Yair Rosenberg — The president draws a line in the sand in his latest interview