Good news! According to the NY Times, "In an effort to dampen international criticism and stave off calls for an international inquiry, Israel’s cabinet unanimously approved a government-appointed commission with foreign participation to investigate the circumstances surrounding its deadly commando raid on a flotilla bound for Gaza in late May."
Foreign participation! How can that be bad? Who are these foreign participants, you ask? Well, for starters, we have a Nobel Laureate! His name is Lord David Trimble, from Ireland! So far, so good right?
Wrong.
Why do you think Israel hand-picked Mr. Trimble? Let's look at a speech he made in October 2007, regarding the Annapolis Peace Conference:
Above all, there has been much said about the need to 'engage' with those who we regard terrorists. If negotiations with the IRA led to the peace agreement in Northern Ireland, we are often told, Israel must be prepared to take the same approach with Hamas.
And as we get closer to a Middle East peace conference in Annapolis - itself clouded with uncertainly but still the most significant meeting for more than seven years - those voices urging negotiation at almost any price are getting louder and louder. Commentators point animatedly to the elephant in the corner - Hamas who will almost certainly not be attending the talks. Nothing can be achieved, they argue, if the most extremist elements are not at the negotiating table.
We must hope for agreement at Annapolis. But agreement will mean an accommodation, not a victory of one side over another. Still less will it mean the annihilation of the “other”. Where does Hamas stand on these matters? Will it accept a two state solution? Will it end violence? These are reasonable questions to ask. Failure to reply satisfactorily shows that it would be wrong to try to include them.
The preconditions for engagement are as clear for Hamas as they were for the IRA in the early 1990s. Hamas must be encouraged to take the same steps the IRA took towards the negotiating table. But this will be undermined if they feel they do it on their terms and continue to reject a compromise solution. We must make sure that events like the Annapolis conference are successful and provide Hamas with further impetus to engage in a process with all Palestinians and Israelis of negotiation and compromise.
If there is one lesson to learn from the Northern Ireland experience it is that preconditions are crucial in ending violence and producing a settlement. Over generous flexibility is like giving sweets to a spoilt child in the hope that it will improve his behaviour - it usually results in worse actions.
Where to begin. How about this "impartial" observer labeling Hamas as "terrorists" and "extremists." Now, one could hold that opinion, but how exactly would they be considered an impartial observer in this dispute? One could argue quite convincingly that the Israeli government is a Terrorist and extremist entity as well. Would it then be fair to claim this person is a completely impartial observer? Well, as with Mr. Trimble, they COULD be impartial, but at the end of the day, they make it quite clear that they have taken a firm side in the dispute already and therefore cannot be assumed impartial.
Next, we see Trimble, as is the custom, placing the onus on Hamas to submit to numerous pre-conditions, prior to be ALLOWED to even sit at the peace table. One such condition is to "give up the violence." Tell me, why is it that Hamas must agree to "give up the violence," while that demand is never made of Israel? Fair? Impartial? Don't think so.
This follows with the notion that it's up to HAMAS to change its ways and be "open to compromise." And Israel? He seems to be inferring that Israel is already there. The reality? In all the years and all the negotiations over the past several decades EVERY SINGLE CONCESSION HAS COME FROM THE PALESTINIAN SIDE OF THE TABLE. No, this is not hyperbole. The problem is, EVERYONE BEGINS WITH WHAT ISRAEL WANTS and how much of its wants it’s willing to give up. But that’s not the relevant framework. The only relevant framework is under international law what you are entitled to, and when you use that framework it’s a very, very different picture. If someone stole your home at gunpoint and offered to give you back the garage, would you consider that a "compromise"? No, you wouldn't. So every single "concession" Israel has allegedly made is effectively offering the garage. Meanwhile, Hamas and Arafat before him offered to split the house in two, yet that wasn't good enough, apparently. The point is, Israel has held a position contrary to compromise for decades, yet here we see our intrepid "impartial observer" demanding the PALESTINIANS finally agree to join Israel in the spirit of compromise. Up is down, black is white.
Anyway, these extremists (of course, Israel’s policies aren’t extreme in the slightest!) are like a “spoilt child” and we should avoid giving them too many “sweets.” Yeah, he’s an impartial observer.
One cannot be considered impartial if he or she adheres to blatant double standards, which is all too prevalent nowadays in regard to this particular conflict. To wit:
Israel has the right to violate international law to defend their people, if those laws fail in their duty to protect the people of Israel. Hamas DOES NOT have the right to violate international law to defend their people, if those laws fail in their duty to protect the Palestinian people.
Israel is justified in violating international law in response to RHETORIC put forth by Hamas, which states its desire to steal Israeli land and make it their own, yet Hamas is NOT JUSTIFIED in violating international law in response to Israel ACTUALLY STEALING PALESTINIAN LAND, by force, and creating new, Jewish-only communities on that stolen land, thus making it Israel’s own.
Israel is encouraged to defend their people with extreme violence in response to illegal actions taken by Hamas. Hamas is discouraged from defending their people with extreme violence in response to illegal actions taken by Israel.
Since the definition of a terrorist organization is, in simple terms, an organization which takes part in terrorist activities, Hamas is rightly deemed a terrorist organization because of their use of terrorist tactics. Israel, however, is NOT a terrorist organization, in spite of engaging in numerous acts of terrorism.
When Hamas doesn’t agree to a peace plan, they “do not want peace.” When Israel doesn’t agree to a peace plan, it’s because Hamas “doesn’t want peace.”
Palestinians are blamed for the violence they receive because they vote for “thugs” to represent them. Israeli leaders, no matter how many crimes they commit, nor how many deaths they cause, nor how many times they actively and unapologetically target civilians for massive collective punishment in violation of numerous humanitarian and criminal laws, are NOT to be considered “thugs.”
Israel is allowed to stockpile the most comprehensive conventional arsenal in the region, as well as a large nuclear weapons cache, but Hamas is deemed evil incarnate for “smuggling” crude, antiquated rockets into their “arsenal.”
Hamas is REQUIRED to “renounce violence,” while Israel is not.
Hamas is REQUIRED to respect “Israel’s Right To Exist” (TM), while Israel is not required to respect the Palestinian’s Right of Self-Determination.
The list goes on and on….
UPDATED: THE OTHER "IMPARTIAL" INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER KEN WATKIN
A little about Canadian Brig. Gen. Ken Watkin:
Ken Watkin was implicated in the Canadian Afghan detainee issue, in which several detainees arrested by the Canadian Forces went missing or were tortured following their transfer to the Afghan National Police and National Directorate of Security. According to a report in the Toronto Star, while acting as the Judge Advocate General, Ken Watkin advised the Canadian Forces command that they could be "criminally negligent" for transferring detainees to a risk of torture in Afghan hands. Mr. Watkin refused to answer questions when called to testify in Canada's House of Commons about whether he was directed to authorize the transfers or had knowledge of Canadian diplomatic reports of torture, and claimed that solicitor-client privilege owed to the Government of Canada prevented him answering the House's questions.
A perfect choice!