Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: flotilla

Showing posts with label flotilla. Show all posts

Monday, June 20, 2011

"Miles of Smiles" exposes the lies of the flotilla

From Bikya Masr (Egypt):

An aid convoy heading to the Gaza Strip was allowed to cross into the embattled Mediterranean enclave on Sunday evening, Palestinian officials confirmed on Monday morning to Bikya Masr.

The vessel, Miles of Smiles, is carrying aid and some 60 activists, most Europeans, a few South Africans, Tunisian and Lebanese nationals, had docked at the northern Sinai town of al-Arish on Saturday before making the 45 kilometer journey to the Gaza border.

The activists are also carrying ambulances, medicine and medical equipment for the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, which has been suffering from an Israeli-Egyptian led blockade on the area.

To summarize:

Miles of Smiles	Flotilla
Brings real aid, including ambulances	Pretends to bring aid, but the aid it brings is useless
Works modestly without huge publicity; doesn't even have a website	Publicity whores
Has not acted violently	Justifies violent actions of IHH in May 2010 flotilla; supports terrorism
Adheres to international law	Violates international law in trying to break legal blockade
Brings aid through Egypt	Has come out publicly against humanitarian aid delivered legally
Doesn't lie to the media	Always lies to the media

Photos of weapons on Mavi Marmara - a year late

Last week it was reported that the Israeli Navy had photos of IHH terrorists on the Mavi Marmara wielding weapons.

Photos recently obtained by the Navy show a weapon hanging off the shoulder of one of the IHH members. Another photo shows a gun. It is as yet unclear who took the photos. One of the images allegedly shows MK Hanin Zoabi, who took part in the flotilla, standing next to an armed activist.

Navy commandos who took part in the raid later testified that the IHH men had at least two firearms and at least one of them was used to fire at the soldiers immediately after they descended on the ship. One of the commandos was hurt by a 9 mm bullet not used by the IDF.

Navy sources could not explain why the photos have only recently been received.

Today, the photos have finally been published - only in the print edition of Yediot. Here they are, courtesy of IMRA:

IDF video of 2010 flotilla timeline

The IDF put this out a couple of weeks ago:

From the YouTube description:

The film, based on findings by the Eiland Team of Experts, breaks down the events of the flotilla using a timeline that alternates between 3D models and footage captured throughout the incident.

The events leading up to and throughout the flotilla incident are recounted in the video, as presented by the team of experts led by Maj. Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland in the IDF's internal inquiry.

The first phase of the operation: The IDF relayed the message that the flotilla ships were in an area of a maritime closure, and offered the ships to transfer their cargo from the Ashdod Port to the Gaza Strip. The Sofia ship did not respond at all, while the other ships responded with refusal and/or profanity.

The IDF forces were divided and each group boarded a different ship. The soldiers arrived at the Mavi Marmara at 4:28 AM, but could not board the ship due to metal objects being thrown at them. After an unsuccessful attempt to board the ship by smaller boats, a helicopter arrived at 4:30 AM with 15 IDF soldiers. The first rope dropped by the helicopters was tied by the demonstrators to the deck of the ship in order to prevent the soldiers' descent.

Soldiers that descended down the second rope were met by 2-4 demonstrators each who wielded knives, axes, and metal poles. The second soldier to descend was shot in the stomach by a demonstrator. The soldiers who were in danger of their lives were forced to use their live weapons. Five soldiers were injured by stabbing, blows and live fire by the demonstrators. Within seconds of boarding the ships, three soldiers were thrown off the deck by demonstrators. The injured were dragged to the hull of the ship.

A reinforcement of soldiers arrived from a second helicopter, which was also attacked by demonstrators, and the soldiers are met with violence when they attempt to access the lower deck of the ship.

At 4:46 AM a third helicopter arrives to the Mavi Marmara, and the two groups of soldiers combine forces on the ship roof and descend to the other parts of the ship, where they are also met with lethal violence, and thus respond with live fire.

Many of the demonstrators enter inside of the ship as the smaller boats arrive at the side of the ship, however some still violently attack the incoming boats and the soldiers respond with live fire.

The Commander of the Special Navy Forces boards the ship, and while evaluating the forces, it is discovered that three soldiers are missing. The missing and injured soldiers are discovered to have been abducted by a number of violent demonstrators, who abandon the soldiers and run back into the ship when fired at.

Two of the injured soldiers jump off the ship so that they can be picked up by the IDF boats. The third injured soldier is on the bow of the boat and slipping out of consciousness. IDF soldiers remaining on the boat come to his aid.

At 5:17 AM the situation is evaluated and some of the findings: live fire was used by demonstrators towards IDF soldiers who were on the ship, including one soldier who descended down the rope and was shot in the abdomen. Live fire by the demonstrators was also aimed at the soldiers on the small Israeli Navy boats next to the Marmara. The first occurence of live fire was that used by the demonstrators. In addition, a gun with emptied magazines was found in the hull of the ship.

IDF forces had boarded the other ships without incident. Treatment and evacuation was carried out for the injured soldiers and demonstrators alike. 38 injured were airlifted, 7 of them soldiers.

The three soldiers who had been attempted to be kidnapped and were taken to the hull of the ship were witness to an argument between the violent demonstrators, and other passengers of the Marmara who asked the violent demonstrators to cease their violent activity.

24 of the injured passengers were diagnosed at the Ashdod Port and treated in hospitals in Israel.

After the operation ended, the ships arrived at the Ashdod Port accompanied by Israeli Naval forces. An intelligence investigation following the flotilla incident found that 40 of the IHH activists previously boarded the Marmara ship from Istanbul before joining the others.

The 8 of the 9 demonstrators killed were members of the IHH or other allied groups. Around half of those killed had declared in front of their families their aspiration to die as martyrs ("shahids"). Footage on the Marmara shows that the violence had been prepared: metal poles and chains were prepared, slingshots, buzzsaws, gas masks, tear gas, bulletproof vests, knives, and more. A briefing had taken place before the IDF had boarded the ship, with the leader of the violent demonstrators telling the group to attack the IDF soldiers at any cost.

The exchange of messages between the IDF and the Mavi Marmara starting at around 7:00 is especially illuminating, as the "peace activists" reply back with "Shut the f**k up", "Go back to Auschwitz" and "We're helping Arabs go against the US; don't forget 9/11, guys."

A lawyer destroys the Turkey flotilla conclusions

I posted last week about the published conclusions of the Turkey flotilla report, but did not look at the legal issues they brought up. A well-known expert on international law emailed me and wrote his first impressions of the report conclusions:

The report appears not to have been carefully proofread because it not only contradicts itself, it also indicates possible war crimes by the passengers. For example:

19. Israeli soldiers fast-roped down to the Mavi Marmara from helicopters. Three were subdued by the passengers. They were taken to the lower decks where they were treated for their non-lethal injuries.

21. The shooting spree of the Israeli soldiers continued in spite of the white flags waved by the passengers and multilingual surrender announcements made over the ship’s PA system.

#21 says passengers waved white flags, while #19 acknowledges that passengers attacked Israeli soldiers as they boarded (“Israeli soldiers … were subdued by the passengers). If these were the same passengers, and the white flags came before or during the attacks on soldiers, the passengers committed the war crime of perfidy.

#40 also demonstrates extreme sloppiness:

40. Israel’s ultimate objective through its "blockade" has been to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for supporting Hamas. This is why Israel chose in 2007 to impose a "blockade" although there were other options, and to persistently maintain it even though it did not yield its purported military objectives.

The naval blockade was declared and imposed in January 2009, not 2007. Plainly, since the Turks do not even know when the blockade was imposed, they have no knowledge about its motives, and have no basis for their false claim that “Israel’s ultimate objective through its "blockade" has been to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for supporting Hamas.” Indeed, from #40, it appears that the only “evidence” the Turks have in support of the claim is the (false) “fact” that Israel imposed the blockade in 2007.

The report’s legal conclusions are contradictory as well as being wrong in several places.

E.g., the report says that blockades are only lawful in international conflict (not true – blockades have been imposed in non-international conflicts, see e.g., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575284210429984110.html); the report says that hamas-israel is a non-international conflict (probably true); and that Israel belligerently occupies Gaza. Now, not only is this last statement obviously wrong (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577324), if it were true it would mean that Hamas-Israel is an international conflict, because there can be no belligerent occupation without an international conflict or the occupation of a foreign state’s territory.

35. The "blockade" was also unlawful in its implementation and practice.

36. The "blockade"s "open-ended" nature did not comply with mandatory notification requirements under customary international law, particularly those relating to duration and extent.

37. The "blockade" was unlawful as it was not reasonable, proportional or necessary.

38. The "blockade" was excessive in the damage it inflicted on the population of the Gaza Strip in comparison to the expected military advantage.

39. The "blockade" was unlawful as it constituted collective punishment of the entire civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

The conclusions in 35-39 are simply wrong, but to argue it would be necessary to see more of the report.

42. Under customary international law, vessels carrying humanitarian aid cannot be lawfully attacked.

#42 is wrong no matter what the report says. The carrying of “humanitarian aid” does not render a vessel immune from boarding or inspection, or give it a right to run a blockade. Even if the ship’s content were properly understood as humanitarian, the ship still had the duty to allow itself to be boarded, and its refusal to cooperate with Israeli forces made it a legitimate belligerent target.

There are other bits of legal puffery, like 43-45.

The same kinds of errors and inconsistencies plague the factual findings and the mixed law-fact findings.

For example, #4 states that "Prior to the convoy’s departure, an understanding was reached among Turkish, Israeli and American officials that the convoy would eventually steer towards the Egyptian port of Al-Arish, when faced with compelling opposition. Events demonstrated that Israel did not abide by this understanding." If there was an understanding that the convoy would steer toward El Arish, it clearly was not honored, but the failure to abide by the understanding was obviously the convoy's and not Israel.

#5 states that "No attempt was made by the Israeli forces to visit and search the vessels before taking any other action." Israel was not under any obligation to visit and search the vessels once it determined their aim was to violate the blockade. What is more, it did demand a tow to port for inspection, which the Mavi Marmara resisted.

13. Prior to their attack, the Israeli forces did not proceed with standard warning practices, i.e. firing across the bow, to indicate an imminent use of force.

17. The Israeli forces opened fire with live ammunition from the zodiacs and helicopters onto the passengers on deck, resulting in the first casualties.

20. Israeli soldiers shot indiscriminately, killing and wounding passengers, once on the upper deck.

#13 is plainly a lie. So is #17. And so is #20. The Turks should be challenged to provide evidence for this slander.

16. The Israeli military did not at any time pause to re-assess the situation with a view to consider the least violent options in face of the passengers’ self-defence.

#16 is a mixture of lie and faulty legal analysis. The passengers did not engage in self-defense as they had no legal right to use force to repel Israelis boarding the ship. Once the passengers used force, they ceased to be protected civilians and became legitimate targets against which Israeli soldiers had a right of self-defense. Israel had no obligation to give the passengers time to continue their attack on the soldiers.

19. Israeli soldiers fast-roped down to the Mavi Marmara from helicopters. Three were subdued by the passengers. They were taken to the lower decks where they were treated for their non-lethal injuries.

#19 demonstrates that in fact the passengers did take a direct part in hostilities (they “subdued” Israeli soldiers) making those doing the “subduing” legitimate targets.

Turkey's absurd flotilla report

Turkey today released its report on the flotilla incident. I haven't yet found the full report, but the conclusions are laughable. Here are some:

3. There were no firearms on board the ships.

Well, there was at least one, as an IDF soldier got shot with a bullet that didn't come from the IDF. Bullet casings were also found.

4. Prior to the convoy’s departure, an understanding was reached among Turkish, Israeli and American officials that the convoy would eventually steer towards the Egyptian port of Al-Arish, when faced with compelling opposition. Events demonstrated that Israel did not abide by this understanding.

This is a completely new claim. Certainly the captain nor the organizers ever said they would accept going to anywhere but Gaza - they repeatedly said the opposite when communicating with the IDF. In addition, the IDF told the flotilla repeatedly that they have the option of going to Ashkelon and getting the aid all sent to Gaza - why wouldn't they have asked them to go to El Arish? This is a really fishy story to pop up out of nowhere, and it shouldn't take long to get US or Israeli clarification.

5. No attempt was made by the Israeli forces to visit and search the vessels before taking any other action.

13. Prior to their attack, the Israeli forces did not proceed with standard warning practices, i.e. firing across the bow, to indicate an imminent use of force.

14. Israeli forces initially tried to board the Mavi Marmara from zodiacs. At this stage, the Israeli forces fired the first shots.

This is ridiculous. The videos show very clearly that the passengers were throwing items onto the Israeli boats before they attempted to board, so at least on the Mavi Marmara it was clear that they could not board peacefully. We've also seen videos of the IHH members brandishing iron pipes to stop any attempt to board from the sea, well before the helicopters were deployed.

The other boats in the flotilla were boarded peacefully because they did not offer any resistance. The Turks are knowingly lying.

15. The nature and magnitude of the Israeli attack caused panic among the passengers who, in fear for their lives, reacted in self-defence.

Reacted? They had already prepared themselves with slingshots, broken bottles, pre-cut iron bars and chains. Doesn't sound like a "reaction" to me!

17. The Israeli forces opened fire with live ammunition from the zodiacs and helicopters onto the passengers on deck, resulting in the first casualties.

They fired stun grenades. Shooting from a helicopter with 9mm guns does not make any sense, and, again, none of the videos show anything close to these allegations - and the video smuggled out by the activists showed the helicopters very clearly.

19. Israeli soldiers fast-roped down to the Mavi Marmara from helicopters. Three were subdued by the passengers. They were taken to the lower decks where they were treated for their non-lethal injuries.

"Subdued" must be the Turkish word for "mercilessly attacked with knives and iron bars." "Taken" must be the Turkish word for "kidnapped." I don't yet know what the Turkish word for "throwing off the deck" is.

22. The Israeli forces attacked the other ships as well. Violence by Israeli soldiers occurred on all the ships of the convoy.

What a great investigation to discover these new injuries so many months later!

26. Throughout the hours-long journey to Ashdod, the passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara, including the Captain, and some on the other ships were subjected to severe physical, verbal and psychological abuses.

28. Throughout the ordeal, passengers from virtually all the nationalities represented in the convoy were indiscriminately and brutally victimized by Israeli forces.

I can't wait to read the details on these.

Turks scream "Death to Israel" at Mavi Marmara ceremony

From NPR:

Thousands of people crowded into a port area on Istanbul's European side Sunday to welcome the aid ship Mavi Marmara, scene of a deadly clash off the Gaza coast in May. Volunteers from the Islamic charity IHH (Humanitarian Relief Foundation) directed the crowd past huge posters of the eight Turks and one Turkish-American who died in the violence.

Chants of "Israel be damned!" rang out from the crowd as the ship was eased into dock. The anti-Israel sentiment threatened to undo tentative diplomatic efforts to restore Turkish-Israeli ties, which plummeted following the May 31 fatalities.

Israel's Channel 10 had a video report from Turkey where the reporter said that the protesters called out "Death to Israel" at the prompting of the speakers. The organizaers gave out buttons saying "Damn Israel" in Turkish, and some even had anti-Israel signs in Hebrew.

(h/t Joel)

Wikileaks: Concern about IHH in December 2009

In a recently released cable dated December 4th, 2009 it is mentioned that the Treasury Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes raised concerns about IHH, the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation. The same organization which purchased the Mavi Marmara and joined a flotilla of ships going to Gaza in May 2010.

The cable states that the IHH is "a large NGO providing material assistance to Hamas". [NAME REMOVED] surprisingly said to the Assistant Secretary that he was not familiar with the NGO but would look into the matter.

The same person whose name is removed from the cable states that Turkey and private Turks "sympathize with the needs of people in Gaza" and will send money directly to the people and work to "convince our Israeli friends to send help also".

UN flotilla investigator attends Israel hatefest

From the Bangkok Post:

Two women, one a Jewish-American and the other a Christian-Malaysian, last week provided some deep insights into the Israeli occupation of Palestine and appealed to global activists and media to help the world hear an alternative perspective on the long-standing conflict.

Anna Baltzer, a political activist and a grandchild of Holocaust refugees, and Kuala Lumpur-based human rights activist Mary Shanthi Dairiam, were on the programme to commemorate the UN International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People organised at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand by the Bangkok arm of the Palestine Solidarity Council on Thursday.

...Ms Dairiam's presentation was directly relevant to Thailand. She was one of a three-member panel appointed by Thai Ambassador Singhasak Phuangketkeow after he assumed chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Council in June to investigate the May 21 attack by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara, the Turkish aid ship seeking to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Ms Dairiam provided insights into the Human Rights Council investigation panel's findings. She said that as she was watching Ms Baltzer's documentary, it occurred to her that the Israelis always seem to have reasons for everything that they do. ''We have to fully understand the rationale that Israeli gives and attack that rationale, not just the incidents,'' she said.

Although she called herself a pacifist who had never held a gun in her life, she said the accounts of violence she had heard from victims of the Israeli attack on the Mavi Marmara had changed her forever. ''I have learned so much about the violence in this investigation. It is mind-boggling. I am not the same person now. I am not proud of the knowledge I have.''

Ms Dairiam said the panel had concluded that it had been the Israeli intention all along to cause as much physical injury as possible. She said the Israelis were apparently embarrassed by the many maritime efforts to break the blockade and the adverse publicity it was generating. ''They were going to stop it once and for all. They were intending to kill,'' she said.

Which explains of course why every other ship in the flotilla - the ones without any IHH activists - were taken peacefully without incident.

This violence was totally unnecessary, she said. The captain of the ship told the investigators that if the Israelis had simply intended to stop the ship from sailing onwards, all they had to do was blast the propeller, which would have rendered the vessel inoperable.

And leave the ship stranded in the sea? The Mavi Marmara, as I recall, was too big to be able to safely tow to port in a reasonable amount of time. (And commenter Eliezer, who has served in the Israel Navy for decades, flatly says that it is impossible to blast the propeller without sinking the ship.)

The rest of the article is filled with lies that have already been debunked, by the BBC and by a Turkish reporter no less. But it shows very well that not only was the UN investigation of the incident was a sham, but it was intended to be a sham from the start.

(h/t Israelinurse)

Interview with Mavi Marmara witness contradicts UN report

The Turkish author of a book about the Mavi Marmara, Şefik Dinç, who was on board the ship, gave an interview with Israel's Channel 1 and further confirmed Israel's version of events - and contradicted the extraordinarily biased and false UNHRC report about the ship.

The UNHRC claimed, for example, that the IDF used live ammunition from the helicopters before the soldiers landed. This means that the IHH supporters were just standing on deck, being picked off one by one, without running away. Of course, not a single video of the incident shows a Turkish passenger down while the IDF troops descend to be mercilessly beaten.

Şefik Dinç confirms the IDF version of event, that troops only opened fire when they saw their comrades' lives were in danger.

Interviewer: According to your eyewitness account, IDF soldiers only opened fire when they felt that their own lives or the lives of their fellow soldiers were in danger.

Dinç: As you know, I was on board the ship. I saw with my own eyes that when the soldiers came on helicopters and started landing on the ship, they did not fire. It wasn’t until the soldiers were met with resistance and realized that some of their friends’ lives were in danger that they began using live ammunition.

Interviewer: Did you notice anyone using knives or iron bars?

Dinç: Actually, I saw no knives being used. I did see iron bars being used.

The UNHRC report allows that the IDF did not treat elderly or women passengers harshly, but claims extreme abuse of the men, as well as insults to the women.

134. In the process of being detained, or while kneeling on the outer decks for several hours, there was physical abuse of passengers by the Israeli forces, including kicking and punching and being hit with the butts of rifles. One foreign correspondent, on board in his professional capacity, was thrown on the ground and kicked and beaten before being handcuffed. The passengers were not allowed to speak or to move and there were frequent instances of verbal abuse, ncluding derogatory sexual remarks about the female passengers.

The account of Dinç, who is a man, is quite different:

Interviewer: In your book, you describe cases of humane treatment from IDF soldiers [of the detained ship passengers], such as removing their handcuffs, and even an interesting encounter in Israel with a Jew of Turkish descent who gave you his mobile phone.

Dinç: The soldiers uncuffed some people who were having difficulties, particularly older people, women, and people who did not act aggressively. As for the Israeli policeman, his Turkish was excellent, we spoke, and he said that he had immigrated to Israel from Istanbul. He asked me if I contacted my family and whether I had a telephone to make a call. I told him I didn’t, and then he gave me his own mobile phone so that I could call my family. I thank him again.

The "witnesses" interviewed by the UN had motive to lie - after all, they were motivated to go on a mission to demonize Israel to begin with. Even so, the UN believed their testimony over video evidence that contradicted their stories, saying that the already biased witnesses were more reliable than the video that was released (para. 20.)!

Yet here is a real witness who had no incentive to lie, and whose account corroborates the IDF's version of events in almost every detail.

Don't expect the UNHRC to acknowledge that their very methodology of gathering evidence was flawed from the start.

(h/t Joel)

Aussie flotilla reporter proves his anti-Israel bias

In a long speech to the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Australia, Sydney Morning Herald correspondent Paul McGeough - who already betrayed incredible bias against Israel with his laughably inaccurate reporting from the flotilla in July - cements his reputation.

In the July article, McGeough (who was not on the Mavi Marmara) said things like the IDF "hunted like hyenas" and that the attack was "timed for dawn prayers" and that "a lot of people moved in to shelter" the first Israeli commando on deck "with their bodies." It was so at odds with video evidence that had already been available as to represent a willful disregard for facts, not a piece of reporting.

Now, McGeough shows that his disregard for facts is as natural as breathing:

Arguably, engagement takes place at three levels. There are two – weapons and diplomacy – in which Israel has been ascendant since, oh, I would say about 1948. But there is a third dimension, one that sways the diplomacy; and which is influenced by resort to weapons. This is the contest for control of the narrative of the conflict.

Across the decades, Israelis have told the story of their enterprise brilliantly. Palestinians, by contrast, have told the story of dispossession terribly.

And this fair reporter aims to correct this problem!

Israel's mythology is built on the likes of the stunning success of the Six Day War. And on daring, edge-of-the-seat ventures like the 1976 raid on Entebbe Airport in Uganda. Remember their abduction, halfway around the world of Adolf Eichmann? And the surgical strike on Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility?

Apparently, he hasn't been reading the newspapers in his own industry for about three decades. Because his examples of Israel's ownership of the narrative ends at Entebbe and Osirak (something that, it will be recalled, Israel was roundly criticized for at the time.)

No, it would not be right for McGeough to notice that the Arab narrative has taken the imagination of his fellow reporters, not to mention diplomats and world leaders. McGeough is imagining himself as a speaker of unknown truths, as bucking the conventional wisdom, as a proponent of "dangerous ideas" for saying things like the Palestinian Arabs are being occupied by a colonial power. It is a joke, as McGeough is simply following the fashionably anti-Israel crowd, not trailblazing it.

Hamas is now a peace-loving entity, in McGeough's considered opinion:

After a six year period in which there had been just a single suicide-bomb attack, but in which thousands of erratic rockets were fired into Israel, Hamas acknowledged that there was more to be gained in setting up Israel as a target of international criticism for its own actions, than as a target of rockets launched by Hamas and the other factions. "When we use violence, we help Israel win international support," Aziz Dweik, a Hamas MP in the West Bank was quoted in The Wall Street Journal. "The Gaza flotilla has done more for Gaza than 10,000 rockets."

Only one suicide bombing in six years prior to the flotilla! That's remarkable! Too bad it is a lie. From Israel's MFA:

Aug 31, 2004 - Sixteen people were killed and 100 wounded in two suicide bombings within minutes of each other on two Beersheba city buses, on route nos. 6 and 12. The buses were traveling along Beersheba's main street, Rager Blvd, near the city hall. Hamas in Hebron claimed responsibility for the attack.

Sept 14, 2004 - A suicide bomber riding on a bicycle blew himself up near an armored IDF jeep at an agricultural gate, south of Qalqilyah, injuring two IDF soldiers.

Sept 22, 2004 - Two Border Policemen were killed and 17 Israelis wounded in a suicide bombing carried out by a female terrorist at the French Hill junction hitchhiking post in northern Jerusalem. The Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Nov 1, 2004 - Three people were killed and over 30 wounded in a suicide bombing at the Carmel Market in central Tel Aviv. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine in Nablus claimed responsibility for the attack, carried out by Amar Alfar, 18, from Askar refugee camp in Nablus.

Jan 18, 2005 - An ISA officer was killed, an IDF officer seriously wounded, and 4 IDF soldiers and 3 members of the ISA were lightly wounded in a suicide bombing attack at the Gush Katif junction in the central Gaza Strip. While search procedures were being carried out, the suicide bomber with explosives strapped to his body detonated himself. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Feb 25, 2005 - Five people were killed and 50 wounded Friday night, when a suicide bomber blew himself up outside the Stage club on the Tel Aviv promenade at around 11:20 P.M., on the corner of Herbert Samuel and Yonah Hanavi streets. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

July 12, 2005 - Five people were killed and about 90 wounded when a suicide bomber detonated himself outside Hasharon Mall in Netanya. The bomber was identified as Ahmed Abu Khalil, 18, from the West Bank village of Atil. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Aug 28, 2005 - A suicide bomber detonated himself outside the Beersheba Central Bus Station. Two security guards who stopped the bomber were severely wounded and about 50 people were lightly wounded or treated for shock. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Oct 26, 2005 - Seven people were killed and 54 wounded, six seriously, in a suicide bombing at the Hadera open-air market. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 5, 2005 - Five people were killed and over 50 wounded in a suicide bombing at the entrance to the Sharon shopping mall in Netanya. The terrorist detonated the bomb when he was stopped by security guards, one of whom was killed. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Dec 29, 2005 - Lt. Ori Binamo, 21, of Nesher was killed when a terrorist en route to carry out an attack in Israel detonated himself at roadblock set up near Tulkarm following an intelligence tip. A second intended suicide terrorist was also killed in the blast as well as the taxi driver and a third passenger. Three soldiers and seven Palestinians were wounded.

Jan 19, 2006 - Thirty-one people were wounded in a suicide bombing in a shawarma restaurant near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv. The Jerusalem Battalions of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Mar 30, 2006 - Four people were killed when a suicide bomber hitchhiker disguised as an ultra-Orthodox yeshiva student detonated his explosive device in a private vehicle near the entrance to Kedumim.

Apr 17, 2006 - Eleven people were killed and over 60 wounded in a suicide bombing during the Passover holiday near the old central bus station in Tel Aviv, at the Rosh Ha'ir shawarma restaurant, site of the Jan 19 bombing. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Jan 29, 2007 - Three employees of a bakery in the southern city of Eilat were killed in a suicide bombing. The Islamic Jihad and the Fatah al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack.

Feb 4, 2008 - Lyubov Razdolskaya, 73, of Dimona was killed and 38 wounded - Razdolskaya's husband critically - in a terror attack carried out by a suicide bomber at a shopping center in Dimona. A police officer shot and killed a second terrorist before he detonated his explosive belt. A Hamas statement from Gaza praised the attack, calling it an "heroic act".

And these are only the suicide bombings - there were other more direct attacks on Israeli civilians, shootings and stabbings and bombings and others, also invariably praised by Hamas, no less lethal but ignored by McGeough as somehow irrelevant to his new narrative. Just like he discounts thousands of Hamas rockets as "erratic" - not seeming to notice that their inaccurate nature in no way detracts from their purpose, which is the very definition of terror.

Similarly, he seizes on what a Hamas West Bank MP says to the Wall Street Journal for an American audience and ignores the daily incitement and lionizing of violence in Hamas' (and Fatah's) Arabic-language media every day.

No, for him to acknowledge that the heroic Palestinian Arabs by and large embrace violence and terror and have no desire to live with Israel in peace does not further the false narrative that McGeough is seeking to push of intransigent Israeli leaders hell-bent on pushing every Arab out of the region, which is what his speech implies.

But then again, he might have other more personal reasons to want to push his Arab narrative and ignore the facts. His girlfriend is an outspoken Palestinian Arab activist.

(h/t Greg)

UNHRC ignores an important part of the flotilla report

Yesterday, the so-called UN Human Rights Council debated the report that slammed Israel for its conduct with the passengers who attacked IDF soldiers with iron bars, chains and knives as they boarded the ship.

As I mentioned, the report was incredibly biased and it trampled on international law. But the people debating the report did not bother to read it, because they characterized the flotilla as "humanitarian" - and the report, pointedly, did not.

The very headline of the debate on the UNHRC webpage called it "Israel's attack on the Humanitarian Flotilla." But the report is a lot more equivocal:

80. The Mission notes a certain tension between the political objectives of the flotilla and its humanitarian objectives. This comes to light the moment that the Government of Israel made offers to allow the humanitarian aid to be delivered via Israeli ports but under the supervision of a neutral organization. The Mission also notes that the Gaza Strip does not possess a deep sea port designed to receive the kind of cargo vessels included in the flotilla, raising practical logistical questions about the plan to deliver large quantities of aid by the route chosen. Whilst the Mission is satisfied that the flotilla constituted a serious attempt to bring essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza, it seems clear that the primary objective was political, as indeed demonstrated by the decision of those on board the Rachel Corrie to reject a Government of Ireland-sponsored proposal that the cargo in that ship to be allowed through Ashdod intact.

While the mission was wrong about how serious the flotilla was in bringing aid - the aid was not organized in any way that would have made it useful, and much of it was literally junk like expired medicines - the clear conclusion here is that the flotilla was not primarily a humanitarian mission.

Indeed, the mission even notes that

Many of the participants interviewed did not have specific skills or qualifications for humanitarian work. Some organizations said that they selected participants on the basis of their qualifications (for example, medical doctors), status as people of influence (parliamentarians, authors) as well as their ability to resist provocation.

In the conclusions and recommendations, the mission writes quite clearly:

277. A distinction must be made between activities taken to alleviate crises and action to address the causes creating the crisis. The latter action is characterized as political action and therefore inappropriate for groups that wish to be classified as humanitarian. This point is made because of the evidence that, while some of the passengers were solely interested in delivering supplies to the people in Gaza, for others the main purpose was raising awareness of the blockade with a view to its removal, as the only way to solve the crisis. An examination should be made to clearly define humanitarianism, as distinct from humanitarian action, so that there can be an agreed form of intervention and jurisdiction when humanitarian crises occur.

The mission here is acknowledging that not only was the flotilla primarily a political stunt that used humanitarian aid as a cover for a public relations ploy, but that by misrepresenting themselves as humanitarian they are putting real humanitarian aid activities in jeopardy. Or, in the words of the report, "Too often they are accused as being meddlesome and at worst as terrorists or enemy agents."

We see, however, that the UNHRC is ignoring this advice from its own committee. During the debate we see phrases like "the unwarranted and unprovoked military action by Israel against a humanitarian mission constituted a flagrant violation of international law" and "Israeli forces had boarded a humanitarian vessel" and "The organizers of the freedom flotilla were on a humanitarian mission."

Which just goes to show that the entire mission was a farce - even though the members made some attempts to appear fair and, in this case, made a very important and accurate observation and recommendation about the purpose of the flotilla, the UNHRC just barreled on and used the report as an excuse to vilify Israel, which was the mandate of the mission to begin with.

More on the UNHRC's extreme bias

In the UNHRC report on the June flotillas, we have already seen how the Human Rights Council has no compunction about twisting international law specifically to demonize Israel.

Elsewhere in the report, we can see how much they twist easily verifiable facts as well.

Here is how they justify believing biased, lying "eyewitnesses" over actual video evidence:

20. In ascertaining the facts surrounding the Israeli interception of the Gaza-bound flotilla, the Mission gave particular weight to the direct evidence received from interviews with eye witnesses and crew, as well as the forensic evidence and interviews with government officials. In light of seizure of cameras, CCTV footage and digital media storage devices and of the suppression of that material with the disclosure only of a selected and minute quantity of it, the Mission was obliged to treat with extreme caution the versions released by the Israeli authorities where those versions did not coincide with the evidence of eyewitnesses who appeared before us.

So when witnesses said one thing and video evidence showed something completely different, they chose to believe the liars.

And how do we know that the witnesses are unreliable at best, and liars at worst? Why, the UNHRC admits it! In paragraph 114:

The Mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope.

Why does the report even bring this up? Simple - because that's exactly what the very same "eyewitnesses" claimed, in contradiction to the video evidence released both by the IDF and by the activists themselves.

Paragraph 114 proves that the UNHRC knows that the witnesses are unreliable but even so they judge them to be more trustworthy than direct, clear video evidence!

Even so, the UNHRC expects us to believe that "live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top deck prior to the descent of the soldiers" - as if the IHH fighters would have been standing on deck, as sitting ducks, waiting to be picked off one by one before the IDF soldiers rappelled onto the deck. And that the helicopter was firing 9mm rounds onto the deck (all of the dead were killed by 9mm bullets.) And that the IDF soldiers would somehow have avoided firing their weapons as soon as they hit the deck and allowed themselves to be beaten up with metal clubs even though the IDF had, according to the UNHRC, already been using live fire. The entire narrative is utterly nonsensical.

The rule seems to have been, when the UNHRC had no direct and incontrovertible evidence that passengers were lying, they must have been telling the absolute truth, and that the veracity of the "eyewitnesses" were not the least bit harmed by proof that they were wrong.

(h/t Professor Miao)

UNHRC tramples on international law to demonize Israel

Even a quick glance at the UNHRC's report on the flotilla shows extraordinary duplicity in describing international law.

We had already posted at length a number of scholarly articles about the legality of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza. The UN Human Rights Council finds that it must completely make up new laws in order to accuse Israel of breaking them.

First, it accurately quotes San Remo to define what a legal blockade is:

51. Under the laws of armed conflict, a blockade is the prohibition of all commerce with a defined enemy coastline. A belligerent who has established a lawful blockade is entitled to enforce that blockade on the high seas.41 A blockade must satisfy a number of legal requirements, including: notification, effective and impartial enforcement and proportionality.42 In particular a blockade is illegal if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.43

So far, so good. But look what comes next:

52. A blockade may not continue to be enforced where it inflicts disproportionate damage on the civilian population. The usual meaning of “damage to the civilian population” in LOAC refers to deaths, injuries and property damage. Here the damage may be thought of as the destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of past damage. One might also note, insofar as many in Gaza face a shortage of food or the means to buy it, that the ordinary meaning of “starvation” under LOAC is simply to cause hunger.44

The bolded text is simply made up by the UNHRC and has zero to do with international law. There is nothing in international law that says that "destruction of the civilian economy and prevention of reconstruction of past damage" is illegal under the laws of blockade.

Even worse, the footnote that it cites says this:

C. Pilloud and J. Pictet, Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1987), p.53 para 2089. See also Oxford English Dictionary definitions: “to deprive of or keep scantily supplied with food” or to “subdue by famine or low diet”.

They quote Pilloud and Pictet as if they say that "starvation" means to "cause hunger." Yet Pilloud and Pictet actually say:

The UNHRC is deliberately misinterpreting its own footnoted material to accuse Israel of starving Gaza with the blockade.

Of course it doesn't mention the tons of food that arrive daily into Gaza via Israel itself, nor the fact that not a single Gazan has yet been documented to have starved to death in the past four years.

Since the UNHRC made up a specialized definition of the legality of a blockade, tailor made for Israel alone, it is no surprise that they conclude:

53. In evaluating the evidence submitted to the Mission, including by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the occupied Palestinian territory, confirming the severe humanitarian situation in Gaza, the destruction of the economy and the prevention of reconstruction (as detailed above), the Mission is satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza strip and as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal.

The report goes on to the usual lies - claiming Gaza is occupied, saying that the IDF fired live ammunition from the helicopters before the first soldiers descended on the ship, and so forth. But here is a specific example where international law is being deliberately misinterpreted for the singular purpose of finding Israel guilty.

(h/t sshender)

New Turkish book on Mavi Marmara verifies IDF version

The ITIC has a report on a new book about the Mavi Marmara written by a Turkish journalist who was on board the vessel and smuggled out pictures.

His account verifies the IDF's contentions and disagrees with the IHH version of events.

Some of the revelations:

* It was obvious that the "resistance" was not going to be passive from the start.

The operatives waiting on the upper deck put the captive soldiers on the floor. Those soldiers were beaten with iron bars and clubs; they were kicked and slapped. Some operatives attempted to throw the soldiers taken to the lower deck into the sea. A soldier hanging in the air during an attempt to throw him into the sea was rescued thanks to the intervention of other people, who prevented that from happening

"As doctors attempted to treat the kidnapped soldiers in the corridors, they also attempted to keep the passengers from further beating [them]."

Read the whole thing.

So what happened to the Mariam ship?

Two weeks ago, news outlets were anxious to tell us about the imminent departure of the much-heralded women's only ship, the Mariam, from Lebanon to Gaza. (At least one of them called a single ship a "flotilla." )

Last we heard, they were going to head to Cyprus.

Since then, I have not seen any news about them actually sailing from Lebanon. In fact, I have not seen anything.

The leader of the "Free Palestine Movement" that was behind this ship as well as one other ship, Yasser Kashlak, had a website for the movement - but its domain has just expired. (Anyone want it?)

Kashlek's personal homepage domain likewise recently expired.

A high-profile Lebanese singer who was supposed to be on the ship doesn't mention anything about it on her website.

Was the entire episode a scam meant to grab headlines? There has been very little real reporting about this ship.

BBC looks at Mavi Marmara

The BBC will have a documentary on the Mavi Marmara incident tonight.

Two clips are on its website:

Turk Cevdet Kiliclar, one of nine activists killed on a Gaza-bound aid mission, was prepared to become a martyr for the Palestinian cause, his wife has said.

Mr Kiliclar's widow, Derya, said: "He was crying his eyes out over Gaza. He wanted to be a martyr there."

Israel's elite commando unit which raided a Turkish aid flotilla sailing to Gaza in May has given Panorama exclusive access to its top secret operatives.

Some of the Israeli special forces took off their balaclavas to talk to me and show me the wounds they received the night nine people were killed and 50 were wounded on board the Turkish ship the MV Mavi Marmara.

"I saw a knife in my abdomen and pulled it out," Captain R said.

"The beating was continuous - and the cries of Allah Akbar."

(h/t Islamo-Nazism blog)

IDF Chief of Staff: IHH shot first

From the New York Times:

Israel’s top military chief said Wednesday that activists on a Turkish ship were the first to open fire as Israeli naval commandos raided the vessel, part of a six-boat flotilla bound for Gaza, fomenting a bloody confrontation on board that left nine activists dead.

Testifying before an Israeli commission of inquiry, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, the Israeli Army chief of staff, gave the most detailed description yet of the military’s version of the events in late May.

General Ashkenazi said that mistakes had been made. The main one, he said, was that the soldiers, who rappelled onto the ship from a helicopter one by one, lacked the manpower to create a sterile area quickly enough. They were immediately set upon by the activists, some wielding axes, knives, iron bars and clubs, he said.

Though stun grenades were fired first, from the air, they failed to disperse the dozen or so activists on the roof of the boat. What was lacking, according to the army chief, was preparation for the use of “precise fire,” by which he appeared to mean snipers, “to neutralize those preventing the soldiers from boarding the boat.”

The army chief staunchly defended the actions of his soldiers. He said that they had displayed “cool-headedness, courage and morality,” opening fire only when necessary, and that the Israeli use of force was proportionate.

According to the general, the second soldier who fast-roped onto the roof of the boat, the Mavi Marmara, was shot in the abdomen and fired back. Activists who were on board have given very different accounts, saying the soldiers opened fire as soon as they came on board, or even before.

An Israeli military investigation of the episode concluded a month ago that Israeli soldiers most likely fired only after having been fired upon. A video in two separate parts, produced by the army and shown to the commission, stated that the shot fired at the second soldier was “probably” the first shot fired on the ship.

But General Ashkenazi said it was “clear and established” that flotilla participants opened fire first.

The weapon used may have been snatched from the first soldier who landed on the ship.

A gun belonging to one of the soldiers was later found on board, empty of bullets. In addition, the military said it found ammunition, cartridges and bullets that were not from the Israeli Army, suggesting that there might have been at least one other gun on the ship. According to the general, the boat’s captain told the Israelis that it might have been thrown overboard.

General Ashkenazi stated that the army had prepared for the possibility that the activists could open fire, though the military “did not assess correctly the strength of the resistance” the commandos would meet when they came down the rope. According to the video, soldiers trying to approach the Mavi Marmara on rubber lifeboats said they were fired on from both sides of the ship. As clashes broke out on the boat, commandos fired at the feet of their “attackers.”

When the commandos met resistance as they tried to rush the bridge, they responded with fire. And at one point, at least 15 minutes into the struggle for control of the ship, the force commander allowed the soldiers to use accurate and precise live fire against violent activists, to permit more soldiers to climb aboard from the lifeboats.

The stun grenades from the helicopter, which I hadn't heard of before, would explain why the passengers thought that the IDF was shooting at them from the air.

Of course, the "activists" have no problem telling their lies to the world. Here's their graphic of the events, from the Free Gaza page:

Somehow, they must have forgotten to draw their prepared axes, knives, clubs, chains and slingshots. Must have been an oversight.

The Flotilla Farce (Danny Ayalon)

Danny Ayalon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, touches on many of my blog themes - the hypocrisy of the flotilla activists, the plight of Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon, and how Gaza's poverty is hugely exaggerated.

A couple of years ago, a Palestinian refugee camp was encircled and laid siege to by an army of tanks and Armored Personnel Carriers. Attacks initiated by Palestinian militants triggered an overwhelming response from the army that took the life of almost 500 people, including many civilians. International organizations struggled to send aid to the refugee camps, where the inhabitants were left without basic amenities like electricity and running water. During the conflict, six U.N. personnel were killed when their car was bombed.

While most will assume that the events described above took place in the West Bank or Gaza, they actually took place in Lebanon in the summer of 2007...

At the time, there was little international outcry. No world leader decried the "prison camps" in Lebanon. No demonstrations took place around the world; no U.N. investigation panels were created and little media attention was attracted. In fact, the plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon garners very little attention internationally.

Today, there are more than 400,000 Palestinians in Lebanon who are deprived of their most basic rights. ...Unlike all other foreign nationals in Lebanon, they are denied access to the health-care system. According to Amnesty international, the Palestinians in Lebanon suffer from "discrimination and marginalization" and are treated like "second class citizens" and "denied their full range of human rights."

In view of the worsening plight of the Palestinians in Lebanon, it is the height of irony that a Lebanese flotilla is organizing to leave the port of Tripoli in the next few days to bring aid to Palestinians in Gaza. According to one of the organizers, the participants are "united by a feeling of stark injustice."

This attitude exposes the dishonesty of the whole flotilla exercise. Whether it is from Turkey, Ireland or Cyprus, those that participate in these flotillas reek of hypocrisy. There are currently 100 armed conflicts and dozens of territorial disputes around the world. There have been millions of people killed and hundreds of millions live in abject poverty without access to basic staples. And yet hundreds of high-minded "humanitarian activists" are spending millions of dollars to reach Gaza and hand money to Hamas that will never reach the innocent civilians of Gaza.

This is the same Gaza that just opened a sparkling new shopping mall that would not look out of place in any capital in Europe. Gaza, where a new Olympic-sized swimming pool was recently inaugurated and five-star hotels and restaurants offer luxurious fare.

Markets brimming with all manner of foods dot the landscape of Gaza, where Lauren Booth, journalist and "human rights activist," was pictured buying chocolate and luxurious items from a well-stocked supermarket before stating with a straight face that the "situation in Gaza is a humanitarian crisis on the scale of Darfur."

...The latest flotilla preparing to leave from Lebanon fully exposes not only the hypocrisy but the danger of these provocative vigilante flotillas. The Lebanese flotilla, whose organizers claim injustice while ignoring the dire human rights situation of the Palestinians in Lebanon, amply demonstrate that these flotillas have nothing to do with humanitarian concerns and everything to do with delegitimizing Israel.

Read the whole thing.

Lebanese "flotilla" might sail this week

Israel's Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center has a brief paper that analyzes the latest on the Lebanese women's and reporters' ships that were supposed to have sailed a month ago. They agree with my reporting that Hezbollah is behind the ships and that the purpose of these ships may be to provoke a deadly Israeli response:

1. Yasser Qashlaq, chairman of the Free Palestine Movement and organizer of the Lebanese flotilla to the Gaza Strip, said the ships would leave within a few days. Qashlaq asked Lebanese politicians not to make difficulties, but rather to cooperate so the flotilla might succeed (DayPress news website, July 20, 2010). His previous declarations about its sailing were not realized, but nevertheless it is possible that this time the ships will set sail, despite a large number of international objections.
2. The current situation of the flotilla is as follows:
A. The ship called Maryam reached Tripoli and is currently participating in the routine processes required by law before a ship set sail. Rima Farah, ship spokesperson, said that contacts had been made with a number of countries to acquire authorization for the ship to be received at their harbors, because it cannot sail directly from Lebanon to the port of Gaza. Samar al-Hajj, coordinator for the organizing committee, is the director of the ship's logistic activities. Note: The ship will carry only women passengers (Al-Diyar website, July 21, 2010).
B. The ship called Nagi al-Ali (formerly Julia) is ready to set sail, and according to the organizers all that remains to be done is to load the cargo. Most of the passengers will apparently be correspondents.
C. The organizers may have another ship, but they are not divulging any information about it.
3. Yasser Qashlaq said he did not rule out the possibility that Israel would try to halt the flotilla because "there is no limit to the crimes of the entity of the occupation." He also said that there would be peace activists aboard the ships and that the cargos would include humanitarian equipment, and that any attempt to stop them would be "a terrorist action" (DayPress news website, July 20, 2010).
4. In our assessment, the ships were purchased and the flotilla organized with the involvement and support of Syria and Hezbollah, although both do not want to expose their roles and use organizations like the Free Palestine Movement as fronts for their activities.
5. Qashlaq revealed his position in an interview with Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV on June 19, 2010. He said that "the day will come when the ships [which arrive at the Gaza Strip] will take the remainder of the European garbage which came to my country [i.e., Israel] back to their homelands, Gilad Shalit will return to Paris and they [the leaders of Israel will return to Poland. Let the murderers go home. After they return we will pursue them everywhere all over the world and try them in court for the slaughters they have carried out from Dir Yassin to this day."
6. Considering the stated positions of Qashlaq and some of those involved in the flotilla, and especially their close ties with Syria and Hezbollah, he apparently wants a violent confrontation between the passengers and the Israeli Air Force and Navy with a lot of media coverage. His intention is to defame Israel, even if his agenda is not necessarily that of the other passengers aboard the ships.
7. More proof that this flotilla, like that of the Mavi Marmara, is meant mainly to create a media circus and incite anti-Israeli propaganda, and not to bring humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip was made public by an Al-Jazeera TV investigative report.
8. The Al-Jazeera TV's Gaza Strip correspondent, revealed that the Gazans responsible for the ministry of health of the de facto Hamas administration were resentful because 70% of the medicines which arrived in the Gaza Strip from the aid convoys from various countries, especially Arab countries, could not be used. They were either unfit for use or their expiry dates had passed by months and sometimes years. They said that one of the convoys had brought dialysis machines which could not be used. The report was also quoted by a daily paper affiliated with the de facto Hamas administration (Al-Jazeera TV, July 20, 2010).

Left: Useless dialysis machines. Right: Drugs whose expiry dates have passed
(Al-Jazeera TV, July 20, 2010).

(h/t Israel Matzav)

UN against "flotillas" to Gaza. Pigs fly.

This has to be one of the most astounding diplomatic victories ever for Israel at the UN:

The United Nations said Friday that groups seeking to deliver aid to Gaza should do so by land, after Israel warned it would intercept two ships seeking to break a blockade of the Palestinian enclave.

"There are established routes for supplies to enter by land. That is the way aid should be delivered to the people of Gaza," UN spokesman Martin Nesirky told a press briefing.

"Our stated preference has been and remains that aid should be delivered by established routes, particularly at a sensitive time in indirect proximity (peace) talks between Palestinians and Israelis," he added.

He made the comments after Israel served notice its forces would prevent a planned Lebanese aid flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip.

"We have received information in recent days about a plan to send a new flotilla to break the blockade around Gaza," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said on Israeli television.

"This is an unnecessary provocation and we believe that preventing such a flotilla is the responsibility of the Lebanese government."

"If this flotilla does leave Lebanon and refuses to be led by our navy to the (Israeli) port of Ashdod, we will have no other choice than to arrest it at sea," the minister added.

"There exists a way of transferring goods, which are not weapons or material for war-like purposes, to the Gaza Strip through the port of Ashdod."

Israel's UN Ambassador Gabriela Shalev earlier delivered a similar warning in a letter addressed to UN chief Ban Ki-moon.

This is especially notable since UNRWA's head John Ging said the exact opposite only two months ago:

Ging, speaking with a Norwegian newspaper earlier in the week, urged the world to send ships to the shores of Gaza, saying "We believe that Israel will not intercept these vessels because the sea is open, and human rights organizations have been successful in similar previous operations proving that breaking the siege of Gaza is possible."

Hamas, of course, says this this is proof that the UN is Zionist:

Hamas has said the United Nations call for aid groups to send supplies to the Gaza strip over-land rather than by sea amounts to "collaboration with the Israeli occupier".

"The UN call to international organisations to use the over-land road to Gaza instead of the sea is unacceptable and illegal," Sami Abu Zahri, a Hamas spokesman, said on Saturday.

Hamas, which is not participating in proximity talks, said that most Gaza residents "are still banned from leaving the territory and this is why this call [by the UN] is considered a contribution to the [Israeli] blockade".

This last part is especially humorous because the people who restrict Gazans from leaving Gaza are often Palestinian Arabs themselves, as Ha'aretz noticed today. Belatedly.

Israel may be slowly learning a lesson that her Arab neighbors have known for a long time: there is great diplomatic power in saying no. When one side in a dispute is adamant and the other is wishy-washy, diplomats will naturally pressure the side that appears to be wavering. Israel is saying very clearly that if the point of the "aid" is to help Gazans, they will help. If the point is political, it will be stopped. The UN will try to avoid supporting a plan that will force a showdown - as long as there is an alternative.