Friend's burden

At the funeral of Furkan Dogan, the U.S. citizen who was among nine activists killed in the Israeli raid.-BURHAN OZBILICI/AP

IN the early hours of May 31, Furkan Dogan and his friend Ali Yunusoalu went to perform their pre-dawn prayers on board the Mavi Marmara. They were part of the Gaza flotilla, six ships that set off from Cyprus carrying humanitarian aid to the besieged Gaza Strip. Suddenly, in international waters, Israeli naval boats appeared around their ship and, in a flash, commandos dropped from helicopters. The soldiers started shooting and bombing, Yunusoalu said at the funeral of his friend in Istanbul, Turkey. It was a big sound, he continued, we couldn't hear a thing because of the noise. Dogan ran here and there. We were very afraid, said Yunusoalu.

Dogan, aged 19, was shot in the chest, and then took four bullets in the head all fired at close range. Dogan was one of the nine who were killed in the raid. What set him apart from the rest was that he was born in Troy, New York, and although resident in Turkey, was a citizen of the United States.

U.S. officials went to see Dogan's family in Turkey. They offered their condolences and offered the family any consular services. Protecting the welfare of American citizens is a fundamental responsibility of our government and one that we take very seriously, said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We are in constant contact with the Israeli government attempting to obtain more information about our citizens.

Two other U.S. citizens were among the 60 injured passengers. When asked what the U.S. planned to do about the shooting of its citizens by a foreign army, Hillary Clinton urged Israel to conduct a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation that conforms to international standards and get all the facts surrounding this tragic event. We are open to different ways to assuring that it is a credible investigation, including urging appropriate international participation.

Protests were organised across the U.S. and in most countries of the world. From Nicaragua to Sweden, Ambassadors left Israel, and strongly worded protests flooded the inbox at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Turkey made the strongest protest, with its Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, calling the attacks state terrorism. Erdogan's name was chanted across the Arab world, putting pressure on regimes that had failed to put pressure on the Gaza issue.

In 2009, Erdogan walked out of a Davos session with Israeli President Shimon Peres after saying, President Peres, you are old, and your voice is loud out of a guilty conscience. When it comes to killing, you know very well how to kill. I know well how you hit and kill children on beaches. The Turkish President seemed to hold a much stronger brief for Gaza than the Arab heads of government. It remains an embarrassment. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas hastily took up Erdogan's term, to denounce the Israeli raid as an act of state terrorism.

Washington's first reaction was mute. The Barack Obama administration expressed regret for the loss of life but did not condemn the raid. Veteran correspondent Helen Thomas grilled White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Our initial reaction to the flotilla massacre, deliberate massacre, an international crime, was pitiful. What do you mean you regret when something should be so strongly condemned? And if any other nation in the world had done it, we would have been up in arms. What is the sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship where a country that deliberately kills people and boycotts [Gaza] and we aid and abet the boycott? Gibbs stumbled. He had little to say.

During the night of June 1, the United Nations Security Council worked on a resolution in response to the Gaza attack. A strongly worded draft from Turkey, Lebanon and the Palestine Liberation Organisation called for an independent international investigation. The U.S. diplomats fought hard on two fronts. They were wary of the call for an independent investigation, rather wanting to call for an impartial one. The latter would allow Israel to conduct its own investigation, which is what Tel Aviv wanted.

The other issue was whether to condemn the act (that is, Israel's assault) or the acts (that is, both Israel's assault and the activists' provocation). Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said, Some of our allies [namely, the U.S.] are not ready to condemn Israel's actions. It should not be a choice between Turkey and Israel. It should be a choice between right and wrong.

There was a fear that the U.S. would once again veto any criticism of Israel. There is a long track record of such solitary vetoes (the count is often 10-1, with some abstentions, most often from Britain, Germany and Denmark). The resolution was passed. It bore the mark of the U.S. pen: acts appeared, and so did the call for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.

That the Obama administration allowed the resolution to get through is a remarkable departure from previous policy. So too was Hillary Clinton's subsequent statement: The United States supports the Security Council's condemnation of the acts leading to this tragedy.

Gibbs, in his response to Helen Thomas, went one step further: We are we believe that a credible and transparent investigation has to look into the facts. And as I said earlier, we're open to international participation in that investigation. In other words, the U.S. now would not object to asking for international members on an Israel-led commission of inquiry.

By June 4, however, the State Department backtracked. When spokesperson P.J. Crowley was asked why the U.S. was eager to participate in the murder of Congolese human rights activist, Floribert Chebeya, and not in the Gaza flotilla attack, he pointed out that one should not compare the capabilities of the government of Israel and the government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

While both governments have an opportunity to conduct investigations of their own, Crowley said, we are confident that Israel can conduct an investigation. We have less confidence in the DRC. Washington's steadfast faith in Israel continues, even as there is mild reproach of Israeli policy in this case.

The elders of Israeli policy in Washington felt pressured to make some noises against the Israeli action. Even here the criticism was hastily tempered by an eagerness to remain focussed on Israel's needs (that is, to get out of the situation) rather than the trials of the Gazans or the violations of international law.

Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and now vice-president of the Brookings Institution, told The New York Times: This regrettable incident underscores that the international blockade of Gaza is not sustainable. It helps to stop Hamas attacks on Israelis, but seriously damages Israel's international reputation.

Instead, Indyk and other senior liberals called for a Hamas-led ceasefire, a mutual exchange of political prisoners and an end to the blockade. No longer did the Washington liberals insist that Hamas recognise Israel and renounce its violent means. That was off the table. Our responsibility to Israel, Indyk wrote, is to help them find a way out of this situation.

Given this lacklustre performance from Washington, it is no wonder that the Israeli government remained obdurate. Almost two-thirds of Israelis believe the attack on the flotilla was out of bounds, and yet the government refuses to acknowledge their opinions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected criticism of the Gaza blockade and refused to apologise for his troops. He said: Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. The international community cannot afford an Iranian port on the Mediterranean. The same countries that are criticising us today should know that they could be targeted tomorrow.

When the next ship, the Rachel Corrie (named after a U.S. activist killed by the Israeli Army in 2003), attempted to break the blockade on the morning of June 5, the Israeli Navy detained it, arrested the Irish activists and Malaysian Member of Parliament, and seized the ship. There was to be no break in the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Much the same kind of hard line came from several U.S. politicians and think tanks. Representative Gary Ackerman, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, reiterated his strong support for Israel's right to defend itself, and the right of Israel's naval commandos, who were executing a legal mission, to defend themselves by using force when they were brutally attacked.

Representative Anthony Weiner, otherwise a well-regarded liberal, took pains to defend the blockade. In an interview with Politico, Weiner said, The United Nations is a giant anti-Israel echo chamber on the east side of Manhattan, and its members sit and wait for opportunities to criticise Israel. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute warned that if Obama was too hard on Israel, the Israel Air Force might have to act unilaterally against Iran (if the White House decides to come down hard on Israel now, it is the same as giving a green light for Israel to strike Iran).

A senior Obama administration official told The New York Times that the White House needs a new approach to Gaza. One and a half million people live on 360 square kilometres, hemmed in by Israeli power, unable to trade freely, with only a quarter of the humanitarian assistance (needed for the region according to the U.N.) allowed in by the Israeli blockade. Gaza has become the symbol in the Arab world of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and we have to change that, said the senior official. We need to remove the impulse for the flotillas. The Israelis also realise that this is not sustainable.

The official spoke anonymously because debate over the U.S. policy on Gaza has now reopened and is unsettled. All indications show that there will be only cosmetic changes regarding the special relationship between Israel and the U.S. with a rebuke here and there from Washington and a snub from Tel Aviv. Obama might want to walk a tightrope, eager to restart some kind of West Asia dialogue, eager indeed to redeem his promises made in the famous Cairo speech a year ago. There are few signs that any of this is going to be possible. As the Egyptian writer Ahdaf Soueif put it, George W. Bush was reviled in the Arab world. Nobody actively dislikes President Obama. It's more sorrow. It's more a belief that he actually does know better, and yet for some reason, he is unable to perform, and that is very, very sad.

Furkan Dogan's death in the Israeli raid has opened up questions in Washington. The answers are, as yet, not clear but unfortunately predictable.