The Mavi Marmara massacre set off changes in opinion or sentiment through­out the world, det­o­nat­ing global revolt, which gave pol­i­cy­mak­ers both pretext and impulse to lighten the blockade, as well as crys­tal­liz­ing and con­tribut­ing to mounting sentiment against the siege of Gaza, the occu­pa­tion, and Zionism more generally. A couple points follow. The first is that in an emerging multi-polar world, Pales­tini­ans and those in sol­i­dar­ity with them can appeal to emerging regional powers—Turkey, Brazil, to some extent Venezuela—to be their champions. Much policy does emanate from the United States and Europe, but the currency on the world stage is not “superpower-ism” but power, and there is power in other locations besides the West. The second is that the blockade, and the occu­pa­tion, and Zionism more generally, depend on the com­plic­ity of sur­round­ing states, and so com­pli­ance or passivity on the part of the pop­u­la­tions of those states. This is a wedge for Palestinians.

I will develop these points, but first, let me set the stage with some sta­tis­tics. They may not be sur­pris­ing. In a recent poll, eighty five percent (85%) of the Israeli Jewish respon­dents indicated that Israel either did not use enough force (39%) or used the right amount of force (46%) during the attack. Only eight percent (8%) felt the Israelis used too much force. These numbers basically parallel the per­cent­ages of Israeli Jews who supported the winter massacre—there is near-unanimity on violence in Israeli Jewish society. David Pollock writing at Foreign Policy comments,

The survey also found extremely high levels of intensity among respon­dents, a fact that makes it par­tic­u­larly difficult for the Israeli gov­ern­ment to move against the tide of public opinion. In my 30 years of pro­fes­sion­ally analyzing Israeli and Arab polls, I have rarely seen such a pas­sion­ate response from those surveyed. For example, among the very large majori­ties who said Israel should do whatever it takes to block Iranian or Turkish vessels from reaching Gaza, extra­or­di­nar­ily high per­cent­ages said they feel “strongly” about the issue: 68 percent for Turkish boats, and an even higher pro­por­tion, 78 percent, regarding Iranian blockade-runners.

Even in the second-most-indoctrinated society in the world, the US, prac­ti­cally saturated with hasbara, support for the Israeli action was not nearly so high, and the only reliable infor­ma­tion we have is from 3–4 days after the massacre, when the Israeli narrative was still the over­ween­ingly dominant one in the US press. I suspect support decreased in the sub­se­quent weeks, and fur­ther­more, even that poll, which asked mis­lead­ing questions, found sharp dif­fer­ences between Repub­li­can and Demo­c­ra­tic voters. There are widening diver­gences of both tactics and prin­ci­ples between the US and Israel, espe­cially regarding the excesses of Israeli violence. We should seek to exploit those diver­gences, while rec­og­niz­ing the limits of the American peace movement.

In other countries, public opinion is far more strongly in favor of Palestine. In South America, the reaction has been extremely powerful. The South American regional orga­ni­za­tion, UNASUR, announced that it “ener­get­i­cally rejects the inter­ven­tion of Israeli forces,” in the context of a larger statement calling the siege of Gaza intol­er­a­ble. Other US allied states such as Peru and Chile attacked Israeli policy. Peru “condemn[ed]” the “violent inter­ven­tion” and Chile “deplor[ed]” the “violent reaction of the Israeli forces.” Venezue­lan President Hugo Chavez, a strong ally of the Pales­tin­ian people, “ener­get­i­cally” condemned the “brutal massacre committed by the State of Israel.” This much was predictable.

Continue reading Global shifts in the wake of the Mavi Marmara massacre

Tech­no­rati Tags: BDS, civil society, Egypt, Gaza, Israel, Lebanon, Mavi Marmara, non-violence, Palestine