Dan Jacobson, professor of organizational behavior and political psychology in the Department of Labor Studies at Tel-Aviv University, believes that we can observe a two-fold reaction of the Israeli public with regard to the flotilla incident: while the performance of the military is criticised, the blockade itself is regarded as justified. The Peace Now activist and Meretz Party official sees difficult times ahead for Israeli-Palestinian proximity talks.
How is the Israeli public reacting to the flotilla incident?
We can distinguish between two kinds of reactions. First of all there is a lot of criticism on the performance as far as the action of the military is concerned. The majority seems to be very critical – almost to the point of despair – of the way this was carried out. They think this was a terrible blunder. Even on the right, there is a belief that this was not well prepared. The criticism is that there was not enough intelligence beforehand and that the means used were insufficient. This sort of reaction can be seen nation-wide in the media as well as on the part of politicians and the public.
However, this sense of failure with regard to actual performance should not be confused with continued public support for the Gaza blockade. Though this may change, and tough questions are beginning to be raised in the media, to this point most Israelis tend to believe that the Gaza blockade is indeed necessary. In their eyes, lifting the blockade would mean a lifeline to Hamas and free access of offensive weapons and rockets.
How is the reaction of the Israeli peace groups? What kind of protest has happened or is planned?
Concerning information on the incident itself we can for now only rely on what was conveyed by the media. People still seem to be very confused and a public reaction still has to mature. It seems to be too early to conclude which way the public response will go and what political direction it will take. It remains to be seen whether the effects of the present drama and subsequent developments will be sufficient to trigger a change in the Israeli siege mentality mindset. The main general concern is about the deepening isolation of Israel to the point of its delegitimation. Temporarily, Turkey has almost replaced Iran as a threat to be taken seriously. Within Israel there is a relatively widespread call for those responsible for the debacle to "assume responsibility", but who is meant by this remains unclear. The far-left peace groups have held spontaneous small-scale demonstrations and a larger one is being planned for the coming Saturday June 5th.
Do you see any possibility that a judicial commission will be set up, where the members are selected by the president of the Supreme Court?
Legally, there are several kinds of commissions that can be set up. One way is certainly to have a judicial commission. Many believe that this time such a commission can’t be avoided. But the crucial question after all is: What kind of mandate will this commission have? Will this mandate will be limited only to investigating the military failure and the factors leading to it, or will it be charged with a wider role of examining the fundamental policies which brought us to this point. My guess is that it will be the former.
What was the reaction of the opposition in the parliament?
There was – unfortunately – a quite strong and remarkable reaction by the biggest opposition party Kadima. The party led by Tzipi Livni came out in support of the government and backed the military. In addition to the obvious outrage of the parties representing the Palestinian Israelis, Meretz was the sole voice that expressed strong opposition and demanded an immediate objective investigation. Of course there is a temptation to make use politically of what has happened. But our problem – and I am talking now as a left-winger – is that the public has yet to be convinced that the whole notion of using force as the only way to solve problems is disastrous.
What kind of repercussions of the events towards the proximity talks do you see?
There are several layers. Of course the outspoken layer is that the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank including Abu Mazen came out forcefully against what has happened.
But there is also an underlying layer which we admittedly cannot be so sure about. Contrary to their public statements, Abu Mazen, probably Egypt and maybe also Jordan are partners in a general alignment that wishes Hamas to disappear. Behind closed doors, they are in favour of whatever limits Hamas. There were news reports saying that after the incident Abu Mazen called Netanyahu, who was in Canada at that time, and told him that they – Palestinians and the Israeli government – have to go on with the proximity talks. If these reports turn out to be true, this would have some significance provided Israel uses this juncture to make a 180 degrees U-turn in its policies (not very likely under the present coalition). In any case, the forces of moderation among Palestinians and in the Arab world have again been dealt a severe blow.
I guess there is going to be some delay concerning the proximity talks. This also depends on reactions of the UN Security Council and the European Union.
But even if they are resumed, if you ask me to comment on the chances that the proximity talks will lead to some breakthrough, I was very pessimistic even before the recent events. All the more so now, I don’t believe that talks under current circumstances can lead to any good results. Both parties lack the political capital and the willingness to transform those proximity talks into changes on the ground. In the long run it will be necessary to have a much more assertive involvement from abroad to get things going here.
Do you think the events could lead to a rethinking of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians in general and towards the Gaza strip in particular?
Towards the Palestinians in general maybe yes. However, the main overall concern remains security. Towards Gaza I am not sure, because concerning Gaza Israel doesn’t stand alone. As indicated before, the Palestinians in the West Bank, the Egyptians and other moderates in the Muslim world are very ambivalent towards Hamas and the role they play in Gaza. Externally they of course have to declare they are against the blockade. When it comes to private discussions they are much more outspoken about seeing a change in Gaza. It is much more complicated than sometimes the various declarations seem to indicate.
The questions were posed by Christian Eichenmüller, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Berlin and Jörn Böhme, director of the office of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung in Tel Aviv.