Israel's Flotilla Raid And Its Aftermath

By James Kitfield  

Michael Oren

Israeli ambassador to U.S.

NJ: Senior Obama administration officials insist that they privately urged Israel to use "caution and restraint" in dealing with the "Free Gaza" flotilla. Putting aside Israel's justification for the blockade, why did you ignore that advice?

Oren: You're assuming that we received such advice.

NJ: Are you saying that Israel was not asked to use restraint by U.S. officials?

Oren: To the best of my knowledge, we received no such advice. Most of our mutual discussions before the incident focused on trying to persuade Turkish officials to exert their influence over the flotilla organizers to send the aid cargo to Israel so that we could pass it to a responsible Palestinian actor in the Gaza Strip. Unfortunately, Turkey rejected our offer. That was the entirety of our discussions.

NJ: Did you have intelligence indicating weapons on board the ships, or some other threat that would justify such a high-risk nighttime operation?

Oren: We had no intelligence about weapons on the ships. We had intercepted nine flotillas in the past without violence, however, just as we intercepted five of the six ships in this flotilla without incident. The ship on which the violence occurred was too large to stop without boarding it, and among the 600 people on deck we encountered these [Turkish Islamic charity] IHH thugs who set upon our sailors. If we had rammed the boat, we risked sinking it. If we tried knocking its propeller off, the ship might also have sunk. So there were not a lot of viable alternatives to stopping the flotilla.

NJ: Given that the boats reportedly left dock with some participants singing "martyrdom" songs, and other members recorded martyrdom videos, do you consider it a failure of Israeli intelligence that your commandos had no warning and tried to capture the ships armed primarily with paint guns?

Oren: Well, those martyrdom videos were made public only after the incident, which is customary with suicide bombers. We also saw videos of the IHH mercenaries singing "Death to the Jews," but that was only afterward as well. So I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that this was an intelligence failure. In the popular imagination, intelligence should know everything, but that is asking intelligence to do entirely too much. There were people from a great many organizations and countries on this flotilla, and it happened that these IHH types were embedded amongst them. And of course if we had come on board shooting, or using tear gas, there was nowhere for people to run on those decks, so the result could have been even worse.

NJ: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has stated that international participation in the investigation of the incident would lend it credibility, and Turkey is demanding a completely independent investigation. Will Israel agree to such proposals?

Oren: Well, the issue of the investigation is under discussion, but there is significant opposition to an independent investigation in Israel. We are a democratic country with a fine and proven judiciary. As with any democratic country, we prefer to investigate ourselves. Recently, 28 Afghan civilians were reportedly accidentally killed by U.S. forces in Afghanistan. I think the United States would also bristle at the idea that there had to be an independent investigation of your military forces.

NJ: U.S. officials have also recently stated that as presently organized, Israel's blockade of Gaza is unsustainable. Is Israel prepared to relax some aspects of the blockade to improve the lives of the 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip?

Oren: Well, we are open to any suggestions that would make this easier, but we have tried a number of measures that have all failed. We agreed to United Nations Resolution 1701 [after the 2006 Lebanon war], for instance, which was supposed to have interdicted the supply of rockets to Hezbollah. Instead, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled in size since that resolution took effect. We put representatives from the Palestinian Authority and European observers at border crossings into Gaza, but Hamas shot at the Palestinian officials and frightened away the Europeans. So there is no magic fix to this immensely complex and dangerous situation. And it is not just Israel that is threatened. If we relax the blockade and boats come in with rockets for Hamas, then the peace process is dead.

NJ: With U.S. diplomats on the verge of finally passing another round of U.N. sanctions on Iran over its suspected nuclear weapons program, why would Israel choose this moment to launch a high-risk operation that effectively shifted international attention to your blockade of Gaza?

Oren: Think this through. If we had let the flotilla proceed, I assure you the next boat or the one after that would be carrying rockets made in Iran for Hamas. If you pass sanctions that are truly painful on Iran at that point, what do you think Tehran is going to do? They will give the orders for Hamas to fire thousands of rockets that can hit any city inside of Israel. How far do you think your diplomacy with Iran will get under that scenario? Look, this is the Middle East. It's a very rough neighborhood, and we're always going to get incidents of violence. If the international community is committed to sanctions on Iran, then it has to plow ahead and not get distracted.

NJ: A lot of experts believe the Obama administration has laid down pretty clear red lines against an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Would Israel launch such a strike even if the United States was adamantly opposed?

Oren: We communicate very closely with the United States on the issue of Iran. We are engaged in very intense discussions on that subject, and the policies of both our nations dovetail. We supported the Obama administration's diplomatic outreach, just as we support the proposed sanctions. And the policy of both the United States and Israel is that all options remain on the table. But the sanctions are not even up and running yet, so it's too early to talk about follow-on decisions.

NJ: Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, has said that finding a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a "vital national security interest" of the United States. Do you accept that linkage between the peace process and U.S. national security interests?

Oren: Well, I don't think people wake up in the morning in Afghanistan and join the Taliban because of the Israeli-Arab conflict. On the other hand, we all share a desire to reach a peaceful two-state solution as a way generally to reduce tensions in the Middle East. In that sense, reaching a two-state solution is a vital Israeli national interest as well.

NJ: Almost every serious effort in that regard has concluded that such a deal will have to hew at least loosely to the "Clinton parameters" of Camp David in 2000, which call for a limited right of return to Israel for Palestinian refugees in return for Jerusalem serving as the capital of both states. Given that Prime Minister Netanyahu has adamantly opposed the idea of surrendering East Jerusalem to a Palestinian state, why should anyone believe he is serious about a peace deal?

Oren: We don't accept the Clinton parameters because we don't believe they involve defensible borders. But we understand there will be an extensive and painful price to be paid for peace, and we are committed to the principle of land for peace. We also clearly realize that the Palestinians will deliver their own demands on Jerusalem. So we will go into these talks with our eyes wide open.