The PA’s Abbas isn’t happy that Israel chose to investigate its actions regarding the attack on Israeli commandos by terrorists on the Mavi Marmara.
“We totally agreed with the inquiring commission that was mentioned in the final declaration by the Security Council … The proposal that Israel took today does not correspond with the requirements of the Security Council,” Abbas said at a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the Elysee Palace.
According to the Security Council’s proposal on June 1, the Israeli authority should launch “a transparent, credible, impartial and rapid inquiry, in line with international criteria,” for the incident.
Of course transparency in government is not something Abbas, whose sons own a valuable stake in the Palestinian cellular company, would necessarily understand.
Funny thing is that, despite the double standards, Israel does indeed investigate itself. And it just issued a report.
The report, which examined efforts by the government to resettle the 9,000 people removed from 21 communities in the Gaza Strip and four in northern Samaria, documented how the state had failed to properly compensate the evacuees, resulting in a bevy of social problems for those forced to relocate.
“Five years after the evacuation, an examination of the results discloses an extremely dismal picture: Most of the evacuees are still living in temporary caravan sites; the construction of most of the permanent housing has not yet commenced; the decisive majority of the public structures in the evacuees’ new settlements have not yet been built; the rate of unemployment among the evacuees is double the rate of unemployment in the general population; the economic state of some of the evacuees is very bad, and there are more than a few among them in need of assistance from the welfare entities… it was therefore found that the work of rehabilitating the evacuees is far from completed,†the report states.
The issue of whether or not the disengagement was a wise political decision or reaped diplomatic or security benefits for the state was not investigated by the committee, which dealt solely with the rehabilitation of those evacuated.
Of course the subsequent history showed that the disengagement was at least a security nightmare and that the diplomatic benefits were fleeting.
The Muqata translates Ynet:
The most telling comment of all came from Professor Yedidya Stern, who at a press conference organized by the comittee members themselves, said: “The Disengagement caused the greatest violation of Human Rights in the history of the State of Israel. We are speaking of approximately 9,000 people, and the violation was multi-dimensional, and deep. Those evacuated from their homes, are the “salt of the land” and the committee members are impressed that they are “true pioneers.” (ynet, Hebrew)
The Israeli government made a painful sacrifice in the name of peace. The pain was magnified by the Israeli government’s failure to provide by those who were being sacrificed and by the resulting strengthening of Hamas, which led us to the flotilla incident.
But those folks who applauded and encouraged the disengagement are not much interested in the consequences. Take Thomas Friedman who wrote prior to the disengagement:
The other hugely important fact is that Israel is going to begin withdrawing from the Gaza Strip in mid-August. In a courageous move to shrink Israeli control of Palestinians, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is risking his life, and defying all the schemers and backstabbers in his party trying to topple him, to unilaterally uproot the Jewish settlers in Gaza.
This pending withdrawal and the eruption of a pent-up desire for normalcy among both Israelis and Palestinians together form the foundation for rebuilding the crumbled peace process. That’s the good news.
Now he writes:
But I sure know this: It is overwhelmingly in Israel’s interest to bring more diplomatic imagination and energy to ending this Gaza siege.
So Friedman supported the disengagement, cautiously optimisitic that it would revive the peace process. When Hamas was strengthened by the disengagement and threatened Israel, he faults Israel for lacking imagination. What Friedman lacks, however, is common sense as the empowerment of Hamas was an entirely foreseeable consequence of disengagement. (See Lebanon 2000)
But Friedman is typical of Israel’s critics. He demands that Israel make sacrifices for peace but when those sacrifices backfire won’t credit Israel for having tried and faults Israel for defending itself.
It’s not Israel that needs to investigate itself regarding the flotilla (though it plans to) it’s those who demand sacrifices from Israel and nothing from the Palestinians.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
