Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: flotilla

Showing posts with label flotilla. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Gazans disgusted at flotilla, Arab "aid"

Palestinians claim that most of the medicines sent into Gaza are past their expiration date, Al-Jazeera reported on Wednesday.

"They're bringing more harm than good," the article explained, describing expired medicines and broken supplies sent by different countries and organizations.

Mounir el-Barash, director of the donations department in Gaza's Ministry of Health told al-Jazeera that only 30% of the aid sent into the Gaza Strip is used.

Gaza officials also expressed anger at receiving burial shrouds for children from Arab countries.

The Al Jazeera article adds that some of the dialysis equipment sent by an aid convoy was useless, that despite calls for specific types of medicines the donors have not responded, and that the many tons of expired medicines must be buried in landfills - but they don't have the equipment to do so properly, and these landfills can therefore become an environmental problem.

As I've mentioned in the past, Arab donors have consistently reneged on their pledges to help Gaza.

I could be cynical and say that they do this deliberately in order to make Israel look bad, but I think the reason is simpler: Arab nations are no fans of Hamas and they (the Gulf states especially) like to donate money where their investments have a chance of paying dividends - and in Gaza, their money is wasted because there is no way for it to help solve the problems permanently.

(h/t Vicious Babushka and Jameel)

Flotilla timeline video from IDF with English subtitles

This was just released with English subtitles:

Lots of footage from Israeli helicopters and boats that we hadn't seen before the release of the Eiland report.

The IDF timeline on the Mavi Marmara

The IDF put out videos (Hebrew only so far) and an English description of the events that happened on the Mavi Marmara, based on the results of the Eiland team investigation:

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, and electric buzz saws used by the demonstrators to slice the ladders IDF soldiers needed to board the Marmara. 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 arrives from a second helicopter, which is 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.

There were 718 total passengers of the flotilla ships. Most were released without undergoing any investigation. The last passenger left on June 6th.

The Eiland report on the Mavi Marmara, plus more

Maj. Gen. (Res.) Giora Eiland had the task of examining, from a military perspective, the conduct of the IDF in the Mavi Marmara incident. He gave his report today, and here are some highlights - not only from the IDF report on his debriefing but also some details given by a senior IDF official that I received via email.

In terms of the intelligence effort, the team concluded that not all possible intelligence gathering methods were fully implemented and that the coordination between Navy Intelligence and the Israel Defense Intelligence was insufficient. At the same time, the team emphasized that it is not certain that an optimal intelligence effort would create a complete intelligence picture. The team also pointed out that the anticipated level of violence used against the forces was underestimated.

In terms of situation assessments towards the flotilla, the team clarified that the operation relied excessively on a single course of action, albeit a probable one, while no alternative courses of action were prepared for the event of more dangerous scenarios.

Regarding technological alternatives, the team determined that on the day of the incident, decision makers were not presented with alternative operational courses of action other than a full boarding of the flotilla. The team emphasized the fact that as far as is currently known, no country in the world holds the ability to stop a vessel at sea in a non hostile manner. Therefore statements made on this matter following the incident are unfounded and irresponsible. At the same time, the team determined that alternative courses of action could have existed had the process of preparation begun enough time in advance, and recommended to accelerate the process of examining alternative methods....

The team determined that the Navy Commando soldiers operated properly, with professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness and that the commanders exhibited correct decision making. The report further determines that the use of live fire was justified and that the entire operation is estimable.

The additional points I have found out are perhaps more interesting:

* Nine IDF soldiers were injured in all, 3 of them seriously
* There were at least four and perhaps as many as six separate incidents where IDF soldiers were fired upon by "peace activists". In one case a soldier shot in the knee was shot by a weapon which was not IDF issued, and shell casings were found on the ship of bullets that did not come from Israeli weapons.
* In every situation where IDF soldiers used their weapons they were in life-threatening situations.
* The first Israeli soldier shot was the second one who rappelled down. This was almost certainly the first use of live fire by anyone in the incident - in other words, Mavi Marmara passengers shot first. The bullet that hit him came, apparently, from an Israeli gun that had been stripped off one of the other soldiers. He was not shot while going down the rope but soon thereafter.
* 3 soldiers were taken hostage. All of them were taken to the lowest deck. Two of them managed to escape and jump overboard where they were rescued; the third one was too badly injured and was rescued later.

The Istanbul Declaration and the Mavi Marmara (ITIC)

Brilliant research from ITIC:

1...The Gaza flotilla initiative was a step in implementing the jihadist "Istanbul Declaration," issued at a conference called "Gaza Victory" and held in Istanbul on February 14-15, 2009. The conference was attended by 200 Arab and European Sunni sheikhs and clerics as well as members of Hamas, and bore the signatures of 90 participants (See Appendix). According to a BBC reporter who attended the event, "speaker after speaker called for jihad against Israel in support of Hamas."²

The Istanbul Declaration provided the ideological background for the future violent implementation of its decisions, as demonstrated by the flotilla to Gaza. The events have to be understood within a radical pan-Islamic context and the mindset of their proponents, and in light of the Istanbul Declaration and the 90 radical Muslim scholars and clerics who publicly sanctioned the legitimacy of Hamas and their support for its military actions.

The Istanbul Declaration affirmed "the obligation of the Islamic Nation to find a just reconciliation formula for the Palestinian people, who will be responsible for forming a legitimate authority that will fix norms and attend to legitimate and national rights, and will continue with jihad and resistance against the occupation until the liberation of all Palestine." It also affirmed "the obligation of the Islamic Nation to open permanently the crossings—all crossings—in and out of Palestine to allow all the Palestinians to satisfy their needs for money, clothing, food, medicine, weapons and other essentials, so that they can live and carry out jihad in the path of Almighty Allah." The Declaration also noted that "We affirm that the victory Allah accomplished by means of our brothers the Mujahidin, our defiant and steadfast kinsfolk in Gaza, was indeed achieved through His favor and help -- exalted be He! It was also achieved through fulfilling the religious obligation of jihad in His path."

According to the Istanbul Declaration, there is an obligation for "the Islamic Nation to regard sending foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and preventing the smuggling of arms to Gaza as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation." It continues, "This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways."³

The list of passengers on board the Mavi Marmara revealed the names of two conference participants who had signed the Istanbul Declaration. Their personal involvement in the flotilla demonstrated their commitment to the jihadist cause and their desire to represent themselves as models.

Muhammad Kazem Sawalha -- a fugitive, high-ranking former Hamas Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades commander in Judea and Samaria, currently residing and active in the UK (signature number 72).4 He was involved in launching the previous aid flotilla (Lifeline 3). At the time he noted that the next aid convoy would avoid an "unwanted confrontation" with the Egyptian authorities and that "the confrontation will be directly with the Zionist enemy itself on the high seas" (Al-Intiqad, Hezbollah's website, January 17, 2010). Sawalha, one of the prominent organizers of the flotilla, did not board the ship. Known to Israeli security services and wanted for his notorious Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades activities in Judea and Samaria in the past, it can be assumed he feared being arrested and tried in Israel.

A. Walid Al-Tabtabai -- a prominent Kuwaiti activist who is known to support armed resistance in Palestine and Iraq (signature number 88). At a press conference in Antalya the flotilla organizers asked all the participants to "write their wills." Following the press conference, Walid Al-Tabtabai reportedly "did not hesitate to write his will, in defiance of Israeli threats."5

B. Sheikh Muhammad al-Hazimi -- a member of the Yemeni Parliament and Al-Islah (the Yemini reform bloc) was photographed on the deck of the Mavi Marmara brandishing his large curved dagger (signature number 66).

Jihadist, peace activist - what's the difference, really, as long as you hate Israel?

It is notable that to date, the "anti-violence" Free Gaza movement has not said a word against the violence done by the IHH members aboard the Mavi Marmara. On the contrary, they have consistently defended it.

Hamas claims that new cement will not benefit the "ordinary citizen"

Hamas' coordinator for goods from Israel, Raed Fattouh, said that the cement that is now coming into Gaza both from the flotilla and from others is all earmarked for "international projects" and will not benefit ordinary Gazans.

Which is strange, because while UNRWA is also saying that the cement and other building materials it plans to bring into Gaza is meant for "international projects," it defines them as including rebuilding the houses destroyed during Cast Lead - which is specifically for ordinary citizens.

Given that UNRWA has a track record of building houses for Gazans, seems to be a bit more believable.

Another wrapup on the legality of the blockade

Excerpts of a new article from the Carnegie Council:

Putting aside overheated rhetoric and pseudo-legal analyses, I asked a group of international law experts about the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the methods employed by Israel to enforce it. These are their answers:

Q. Did Israel commit piracy?
The short answer is no, states U.S. Navy Commander James Kraska, who teaches international humanitarian law (IHL, otherwise known as the Law of War) at the U.S. Naval War College. Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea defines piracy as "a private act, typically with some sort of pecuniary interest. And by private, that means it's not going to be a governmental act," he explains.

Q. Are naval blockades a legal form of warfare?
Though it has a negative impact on enemy civilians and neutral third parties, blockading a state is a "legitimate method of naval warfare," says Marko Milanovic, a legal scholar at Cambridge University. However, the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994), considered to be the consensus view of customary law on the issue, does contain a few caveats.

Q. Can Israel blockade a foreign, non-state entity like Gaza?
In August 2005, Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip. However, since then, no independent state of Palestine has emerged—leaving the small evacuated territory in a weird legal limbo. This, in turn, makes adjudicating the Israeli naval action tricky because, while blockades clearly apply in the case of two states at war, the law falls silent with regard to non-state combatants like Hamas, notes Milanovic.

Now, were Gaza still under military occupation (as the UN considers it to be), there would be no problem blockading it. Indeed, Common Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that IHL extends to undeclared wars and occupied territory, says Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg, a law professor at the Viadrina European University. This being the case, the IHL rules governing naval blockades also apply to Gaza.

However, if Gaza is not occupied, as Israel claims, things get messy again......

...Just as it is not a foreign state, Gaza is also not an Israeli province in rebellion. Still, he says one could argue that if a state can employ a naval blockade in such radically different cases, then "you must also be able to blockade territory that is somehow in the middle..."

Q. Is the Israeli blockade a form of collective punishment?
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross have all decried the Gaza blockade as collective punishment. In doing so, they all look to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states, "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited…"

This prohibition has its roots in the experience of German reprisal killings during World War II, Bell notes. Keeping that in mind, to then argue that Article 33 applies to the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza is "bizarre," he says, adding that there "has never even been a claim in any legal forum … that economic sanctions of any kind or blockades of any kind constitute collective punishment."

The collective punishment argument is likewise critiqued by other academics. Von Heinegg, for example, contends that it "has no basis in the law" because the only limits set for blockades are in San Remo. To be illegal, the Israeli blockade would have had to be instituted—not to stop the importation of rockets—but just to starve Gazans. Or, if, intentions aside, the blockade were to kill hundreds of innocent Palestinians.

Neither is the case, he explains.

Q. Can Israel intercept a blockade-runner in international waters?
Speaking in a private capacity, Major John Dehn, a law professor at the West Point Military Academy, says that, if a state has instituted a legal blockade, then it can board neutral ships in international waters. However, there must also be a reasonable belief that "the vessel is trying to breach a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture."

In radio exchanges with Israeli navy personnel on May 30, the flotilla crew made it clear that they intended to run the Gaza blockade. Therefore, Israel was well within its rights to stop the boats.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t Yaakov Lozowick)

Bald-faced lies by IHH

The IHH, the terrorist-supporting group that was primarily behind the violence on the Mavi Marmara, has released a glossy PDF file filled with lies about what happened on the flotilla. It doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny but the Free Gaza movement is publishing and disseminating it happily, because truth is apparently not a virtue to these virtuous "humanitarians."

I can't do a word-for-word fisking because the IHH did not save the file in such a way that the text can be copied, and optical character recognition is pretty much useless. But here are some lowlights:

"The sole aim of these ships was to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza and break the siege"

Well, that's two aims! And as we know from Free Gaza, humanitarian aid is used a cover for the political goal of delegitimizing Israel. In fact, the Mavi Marmara contained no humanitarian aid whatsoever.

The IHH claims that Israel blocked their communication to the Turksat satellite at 22:30 at the same time that the Israeli boats began to follow them. However, live broadcasts continued up until IDF soldiers boarded the ship, as the initial video of beating and stabbing Israeli soldiers was broadcast in real time.

IHH claims that two Israeli submarines were involved in the operation. This is the first I have heard that claim, and so far no evidence has been found to that effect. I am not sure what a submarine would accomplish, unless IHH is implying that Israel was ready to torpedo the boats.

The videos show that the IHH attackers had finished their morning prayers some time before the IDF arrived, and that they had plenty of time to prepare their iron batons, slingshots, and broken bottles to attack the soldiers. The IHH also does not say a word about the IHH throwing items on the soldiers alongside the boat, including one percussion grenade. All of this is on video.

Machine-gun fire? We don't hear that on any of the videos smuggled from the ship.

Shooting as they were descending? Unless the soldiers had three arms, that is impossible.

Geared directly towards killing? Then why were there no deaths on the other boats?

People defending themselves only with items they could find? Um, no, they were prepared a bit ahead of time (especially second video on that link.)

The IHH report goes on to detail more lies, each more fantastic than the one before (for example, that an IHH doctor handed over the injured Israeli soldiers - and then they shot him!) but those lies cannot be refuted with video evidence, merely common sense. Obviously, IHH is not going to mention their own exhortations to throw the soldiers overboard.

Then again, if a "humanitarian" organization has no compunction about preparing to attack humans with iron batons, why would one thing that they have any problem with lying to the world about it?

Who is funding the Lebanese ships?

Even Arab journalists who are known for their hatred of Israel are getting uncomfortable with the Hezbollah-backed "flotilla" of a women's ship and a reporters' ship that have been announced to leave from Lebanon. From Asharq al-Awsat's Diana Mukkaled:

Initially I believed that the mechanisms used to publicize the Freedom Flotilla in support of the Palestinians in Gaza were justified because of the nobility of the cause of breaking the blockade. The cause deserves our efforts to be creative in mobilizing public opinion....

However, with the increase in Arab and international division over the Palestinian cause and in light of the extent to which this cause is being exploited, it is difficult to turn a blind eye to the ambitions of local and regional parties that explicitly expressed their positions and their superficial ambitions – something the organizers of the “Mariam” and “Naji al Ali” freedom flotillas could not distance themselves from.

The Journalists Without Limits organization paid $100,000 US dollars in outstanding fines to the Lebanese government so that it could lift the restraints on the "Naji al Ali" ship and the organization could set sail [for Gaza], although the ship has a seating capacity of only 16 persons.

An organization in possession of this sum should reveal the source of this money to journalists as it is an organization that speaks on their behalf. The transparency of NGO activity requires disclosure of financial sources especially as this organization is new and this sum of money may raise questions that might harm the enthusiasm, zeal and sincerity of many of those who are part of it.

[E]very time I saw the organizers of the two voyages on television or heard their statements and read about their positions, I realized that some former journalists fell into the traps sets by others who have achieved nothing in supporting the Palestinian cause but have achieved other feats that I do not want to be part of.

She doesn't want to say the word "Hezbollah" but it is obvious that she knows who is paying the bills for these ships, and even she sees that these ships have nothing to do with aid or even helping Gaza but everything to do with politics.

Of course Free Gaza is not a humanitarian group

Barry Rubin, and some other blogs, have been talking about the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center's finding documents on the flotilla ships that indicate that Free Gaza's aims were not humanitarian, but political, and that they seemed to be instructing their members not to explicitly show that they are de facto supporters of Hamas in order to avoid apparent ties to terror.

The documents are almost certainly legitimate. Documents released by ITIC are, for all intents and purposes, the same as if the IDF sent them out. They work together and ITIC often publishes things before the IDF does, but it does not do so without at least the IDF's tacit approval.

The thing is that we don't need these documents to know Free Gaza's aims. Even though they are registered as a "humanitarian organization," in their own mailings they have made it very clear that they are not - and they say this explicitly on their own web site:

GOALS
There is a time when silence is complicity and inaction is unacceptable. Free Gaza is neither a "protest group" nor an aid agency. Our mission and our work are political. We are a Palestinian and international effort dedicated to the principle of non-violent direct action. We are engaged in active, civil resistance against the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine, and the violence this occupation uses to sustain itself.

We do bring medicine, supplies, and doctors to besieged Gaza as we can, but this is utterly insufficient. Although humanitarian aid is very much needed, especially now in Gaza, focusing on humanitarian efforts alone is a form of complicity in Israel's malevolent quest to destroy the Palestinian people.

They have said, in an email to their supporters, that they are against humanitarian aid!

While many potential funders recognize the significance of our work, for various reasons they have not come through with funding. Most prefer their financial contributions go toward to humanitarian aid for Palestine. But Palestine is not a charity case! There are hundreds of millions being pumped into Palestine by aid agencies that are unable or unwilling to address the political issues, or by donor countries that shirk their political, legal, and moral obligations, by throwing money at Palestine.

This aid is paying for Israel’s occupation by alleviating Israel of the responsibility to care for the people it occupies. We firmly believe that activists and people who care about Palestine should not be raising money for humanitarian aid but should focus on direct action to confront the Israeli policies that leave Palestinians in need of this aid.

So, yes, Free Gaza had already admitted to its own members a number of times that it was not a humanitarian aid agency.

In fact, it does nto even advocate peace! In another mailing sent out to members, Free Gaza said that they support a "third intifada":

The third Intifada being urged now has to be our intifada too. As Israel steps up its destruction of the Palestinian people, we need to step up our reconstruction of our resistance, our movements, of our communities in our own counties, where so many of us live in alienation and isolation. We need to be the third intifada - people here need more and say repeatedly that they need more than the demonstrations, because they are not stopping the killing here

....The third intifada needs to be a global intifada.

Even though it may be possible to read this last article as merely a call to nonviolent resistance, the usage of the term "intifada" indicates that Free Gaza had no problem with the methods of the first two.

And, indeed, they have explicitly supported violent resistance too! As yet another of their articles says,

On the Right of Resistance

We are often told that resistance is either unwarranted or impossible. Liberal apologists for Israel, such as Thomas Friedman, are constantly demanding that Palestinians lay down their arms, all the while exhorting Israelis to pick them up in ever increasing acts of violence and degradation.

...But even mainstream “peace” movements in the West try to delegitimize resistance by calling on both Palestinians and Israelis to renounce overt acts of violence, equating Palestinians who commit suicide bombings with Israelis who send F-16s, D9 military bulldozers, and Apache attack helicopters to level entire neighborhoods.

The problem is that the usually random and individual acts of violence by Palestinians against Israelis are not equal to the myriad structural oppressions and cruelties imposed on Palestinians through Israeli government policies. No Palestinian fighter jets bomb Israeli cities - because Palestine has no fighter jets....

Even immoral and self-defeating acts of violence against Israeli civilians (such as some suicide bombings are) cannot be equated with the daily humiliations, terror, and death that Israel inflicts on Palestinians by deliberate policy.

This is not to say that any and all acts of resistance are acceptable. Clearly they are not. But it grows tedious to continually hear well-meaning, but otherwise clueless, Westerners try to equate the two sides of this conflict. I am past tired of hearing white people passively whine, or shrilly demand, “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?”

With respect, just because some people have chosen to remain ignorant of the long and deep history of Palestinian nonviolent resistance - from the 1936 Boycott to Bil’in today - does not mean that it does not exist.

The 1936 "boycott" resulted in the deaths of hundreds - it was hardly non-violent, and Free Gaza knows that very well as they extol how wonderful it was. Not to mention that they say here that some suicide bombings are acceptable!

(Now would be a good time to take screen shots of these postings before Free Gaza erases them.)

Of course Free Gaza is not a humanitarian group. It is explicitly political; and it tacitly supports violence. These facts should be brought up to every nation that has recognized it as a charity - and given it tax benefits that charity agencies normally get.

Flotilla 2: Where is Mariam?

I believe the Free Gaza movement deliberately tries to add confusion to their next Gaza mission. Either to try to mislead the Israeli authorities, or to hide the fact that they cannot find or afford a bigger ship and/or volunteers to go on these ships.

While searching the web for traces of a ship called Maryam, I encountered this article which sheds some light on the possible plans of the next Flotilla:

The voyage has been encumbered by bureaucratic and political obstacles from the start. UN resolution 1701 bars any attempts to enter Israeli territory directly from Lebanon, so Lebanon’s minister of transportation has only given permission to a French-registered ship, the Julia, to embark for Cyprus. But authorities in Nicosia have barred the ship from entering Cypriot waters, so the vessel – to be renamed the Naji al Ali after a famed Palestinian cartoonist – is expected to leave for Cyprus but change course for the Gaza Strip.

The organisers of the endeavour said they had been authorised to depart Lebanon immediately, but they were unwilling to announce the exact time of the departure, apparently in the hope of confusing the Israeli military about their intentions.

....

The exact time of the ship’s departure was not the only secret yesterday. Organisers of a group of women activists led by the wife of a former Lebanese general once held in an Israeli jail, Ali al Hajj, said they would be leaving Lebanon in a ship named the Mariam. This group claims it will have more than 50 women aboard, but it was not immediately clear that the ship even exists.

Lebanon’s transportation minister, Ghazi Aridi, emphatically denied the existence of a second ship and insisted that no permission had been requested or given for a second ship to join the Julia on the voyage. “There is a campaign called ‘Mariam’, and the organisers of the campaign to lift the Gaza blockade did not say there was a vessel carrying that name,” a local newspaper quoted Mr Aridi as saying. “I do not know anything about a second aid ship”, he added. Earlier, he was quoted as saying that the Julia and the Mariam were the same vessel.

Whether two ships or one, the Israel military has already declared that the Islamic militant group Hizbollah is behind the effort, and that the boats were likely to be filled with weapons intended to help Hamas, their allies in Gaza. Israeli officials have said that Lebanon is an especially unwelcome collaborator in the effort to break the siege because it remains hostile towards the Jewish state.

Hizbollah has denied any association with the effort, although Mr Hajj joined the group after his release from an Israeli prison in 2008.

The Lebanese government has responded to Israel’s warnings about aid ships leaving Lebanese shores with a warning of its own. The Associated Press quoted an unnamed Lebanese official as saying that the Lebanese government had sent Israel a letter saying it would hold Israel responsible for any violence befalling ships departing its shores, although it did not specify how it plans to do so.

Let there please be just a natural hot summer.

Who's preparing the Second Flotilla?

The main donor of the two Second Flotilla ships, "Free journalists ship" (dubbed as the Naji Al-Ali ship) and the Mariam-ship, is no-one else than PalArab businessman Yasser Qashlaq, who recently bragged that the Second Flotilla will include more than fifty ships.

Who is Yasser Qashlaq? (also more in this video on Samar Hajj and general Mustafa Hamdan (although I could not find out what his role would be in this second flotilla event):)

And I found another video on the martyrdom wish of some of the Flotilla passengers in May (the first scenes you might have seen already):

Flotilla fallout (Neville Teller)

A British author and blogger, Neville Teller, does a very nice job updating the last few days of flotilla news in one nice package, including some things I was not aware of. For example, after detailing a large number of announced new flotillas this coming summer, he writes:

It seems as though the Mediterranean will be crowded with flotillas this summer, though one Israeli official is reported as saying: “We don’t know how much of the threats are real and how much are bravado.”

One factor apparently overlooked or discounted by all these enthusiastic potential blockade busters is that Gaza’s port is not large enough to accommodate cargo ships. Even before Israel imposed a naval blockade on Gaza, no cargo ships sailed there. Historically, all goods that entered the Gaza Strip in bulk did so by land.

The head of the Palestinian Federation of Industry in Gaza, Amr Hamad, is reported as saying that the business sector has separately proposed a plan by which, should the shipping lanes be opened, ferry boats would meet the cargo ships close to the shore, and bring the cargo into the port. He said that such a plan was discussed this week with Quartet special envoy Tony Blair, who was in the region.

He stressed that the business community in Gaza at present preferred the goods to head first to Ashdod, so as to maintain a relationship with Israeli customs. The business sector in Gaza, he added, is not ready to break its economic ties with Israel.

Definitely worth reading.

Newest terror group: "The Flotilla Martyrs"

From YNet:

A group by the name of "The Freedom Flotilla's Martyrs" claimed responsibility for Monday's Hebron shooting attack, in which Command Sergeant Major Yehoshua (Shuki) Sofer was killed, and three other police officers were injured.

The group, which is unknown, issued a statement saying the attack was pat of a series of steps it plans to take in response to what it called "the Israeli crime" of the deadly raid on the Gaza-bound aid flotilla.

"Our mujahedeen group in south Hebron ambushed an Israeli police car near Beit Hagai at 7:15 am and opened heavy fire at it from close range," the statement said.

The statement went on to say, "Our fighters managed to withdraw from the scene peacefully. Our response will continue, we will not forsake our weapons as long as the Zionist military is in our lands, and we will not acknowledge any ceasefire."

Command Sergeant Sofer served in the Hebron District Police for 14 years, and planned to wed this September. He was hit by three bullets that were fired at him. Another officer was seriously injured and two others sustained lights wounds in the incident.

Will the organizers of the flotilla dissociate themselves from this act of terror?

By the way, this attack came just a couple of weeks after Israel dismantled a checkpoint in the area - one that would have blocked the attackers' escape route. And, as David Bogner notes, every single time a checkpoint is removed, terror attacks increase. Not that you would hear about most of them in the media. (The PA never condemns these attacks.)

Newest videos shed more light on Mavi Marmara raid (part 2)

The Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center showed once again how closely aligned it is with the IDF, as it has posted two videos and one transcript of interrogations with the captain and the chief officer of the Mavi Marmara.

Here is their synopsis:

1. The videotaped statements of two Mavi Marmara crew members show that preparations for a violent confrontation with IDF forces were put in motion about two hours before the boarding began, when the Israeli Navy hailed the ship and told it to halt.

2. According to the statements, the atmosphere aboard the Mavi Marmara was tense and the crew noticed a gathering on the main deck. When they checked the upper deck they discovered that IHH operatives were cutting the ship’s railings with metal disks they had brought with them into lengths suitable to be used as clubs. The crew members said the activities worried them and that they tried to stop the operatives but were unsuccessful.

I put the two videos together; the captain is speaking English and the chief officer is subtitled:

Here's the transcript from the chief officer:

Statement: I was on the bridge after dark, before anything happened, the third captain and I were sent in the direction of the life boats, where there were a lot of people and a lot of noise. The captain told me something was happening down there, there are noises, go see what’s going on. There were a lot of people. I told the third captain, you are more senior than I, come with me.”

Q: When did that happen?

A: Around eight o’clock, I don’t know exactly when, but around eight. I went down the stairs with the third captain. We saw a senior person [from IHH]

Q: Who?

A: That guy.

Q: What guy?

A: That guy. Maybe the third captain knows his name.

Q: The guy from IHH?

A: Yes, from IHH.

Q: Whose name does he know? The name of the guy from IHH who cut the railings?

A: No, the third captain knows him from IHH. We [the third captain and I] went together, we saw a lot of people milling around and we asked what was going on.

Q: Did you see them cutting [the railings]?

A: They [the iron rods] were already cut. It was all over.

Q: Who did the cutting?

A: I didn’t see.

Q: Who was holding the disk?

A: The disks were lying in a corner of the stairs and the senior guy [apparently a reference to Bülent Yildirim] was next to them.

Q: The senior guy from IHH?

A: Yes.

Q: Who did the disks belong to?

A: I don’t know, they didn’t belong to the ship. We don’t have equipment like that on board. On deck there were metal poles with clips for cables, when I got there they had been cut.

Q: When did this happen?

A: When it was getting dark. I asked one of them who cut the poles, and he said he didn’t know.

Q: Was the man you asked a crew member?

A: No.

Q: Did he belong to IHH?

A: Of course.

Q: You seem to be saying that the people from IHH were in control of the ship. Did the crew need their permission to move around the ship?

A: Definitely, they [i.e. IHH operatives] didn’t let people they didn’t know move around.

Q: Did they prevent anyone they didn’t know from moving freely around the ship?

A: Yes, definitely.

Q: And was that from the first moment they went up on deck?

A: Yes, definitely.

Q: How did the IHH operatives communicate with one another?

A: When they [the IHH operatives] got on board in Istanbul they brought walkie-talkies with them. They were handed out to the IHH operatives and the crew.

Q: Did you [the crew] get them as well?

A: Yes, each one worked on a different frequency.

Q: I don’t understand, they didn’t let the passengers and crew go from one deck to another?

A: They could go anywhere except to the control center they set up on the bridge.

Q: How many IHH operatives were there on the upper deck.

A: Forty.

Q: The same forty all the time or did they change?

A: More of less the same forty.

Q: You’re referring to the group that joined the ship in Istanbul?

A: yes.

So it seems more and more clear that most of the passengers of the Marmara didn't know what the IHH plans were and possibly wouldn't have approved; yet they must have known that the IHH had taken control of the ship and was calling the shots - co-opting the European and American flotilla organizers.

It also appears that the passenger/witnesses have closed ranks around IHH, not willing to say anything bad about a group that had violent intent. Keep in mind that the crew here is saying that the IHH was already cutting iron bars and chains at nightfall; they say two hours before the IDF was visible but probably some 6-8 hours before the helicopters arrived (at around 4 AM.)

This brings up the question of, if the boats already saw the passengers with the chains and iron bars from the boat, why the first wave of soldiers still came only armed with paintball guns.

(h/t OR)

Toameh: what about Hamas' Siege of Gaza?

Arab-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh asks What about Hamas' Siege of Gaza?

As Israeli naval commandos raided the flotilla ship convoy that was on its way to the Gaza Strip, Hamas security officers stormed the offices of five non-governmental organizations, confiscated equipment and documents, and ordered them closed indefinitely.

...

The raid on the NGOs in the Gaza Strip, which received little coverage in the media, is seen by many Palestinians as part of Hamas's ongoing crackdown on political opponents and human rights organizations.

Further, Hamas's recent decision to ban municipal elections in the Gaza Strip is yet another violation of one of the basic rights of its constituents.

Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested by Hamas's security forces for daring to speak out against the state of tyranny and intimidation in the Gaza Strip. Over the past three years, dozens of Fatah officials and members have either been thrown into prison or killed.

Under Hamas, the Gaza Strip is being transformed into a fundamentalist Islamic entity resembling the regimes of the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

...

Instead of searching for ways to improve the living conditions of the 1.5 million Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, Hamas is busy enforcing strict Islamic rules on the population, such as Hamas policemen, for example, often stopping men and women who are seen together in public to inquire about the nature of their relationship.

...

Hamas, however, is more interested in clinging to power than in serving its people; and in light of increased calls for lifting the blockade following the flotilla incident at sea, the movement's leaders in Syria and the Gaza Strip are now convinced that they are marching in the right direction.

It is one thing to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but it is another thing to help Hamas. Those who wish to deliver aid to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip can always find better and safer ways to do so - either through Israel or Egypt. But those who only seek confrontation with Israel in the sea are only emboldening Hamas and helping it tighten its grip on the people of Gaza Strip.

U.S. Army Col. (Ret.) Ann Wright, on a speaking tour of the United States on behalf of radical pacifist women's group Code Pink, bills herself as an eyewitness to the IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara and the "murder" of "nine innocent civilians." However, in an interview with Aaron Lerner of IMRA, she admits she did not actually see the clash between the IDF soldiers and the armed passengers on board the Mavi Marmara.
In a promotional e-mail on behalf of "Code Pink: Women for Peace," Wright says: "I just returned from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and started my speaking tour last night in NYC to share what I witnessed aboard the flotilla, and what people can do to end the siege."
"I witnessed the Israeli attack that killed 9 persons and wounded 50 on the Gaza Flotilla... the murder of nine persons... Tragically, it took another example of disproportionate use of force by the Israeli military that resulted in the deaths of nine innocent civilians to force many governments of the world to call for the Israelis to end the siege of Gaza."
In the interview with Lerner she admitted that she was not aboard the Mavi Marmara but on a different ship, the Challenger, which was about 150 yards distant from the Marmara.
The confrontation took place between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m., in the dark of night (IDF footage of the raid was carried out with night vision equipment).

She admits:

My witness will be specifically what happened on our ship, the
Challenger. And then I can comment on what happened in the very first three
or four minutes as the Israeli commandos were trying to board the ship. We
saw that from the stern of the ship. But after that that's when my
witnessing from my own eyes of what happened on that ship would end.

Read the whole article...

IDF briefing before the raid (video)

Somehow, I had missed this pretty important video, made and uploaded to YouTube on May 27th - days before the raid on the flotilla.

It shows clearly that the IDF had no intent whatsoever to hurt any of the activists, and that they only expected the usual kind of non-violent resistance - spitting, cursing, throwing cigarettes at the soldiers. The soldiers are exhorted to act professionally and humanely.

The difference between what happened on the Mavi Marmara and the other ships shows this was indeed the case.

Camera: Gun-running Bishop in Flotilla

Retired Archbishop Hilarion Capucci joined the Free Gaza Movement's aid Flotilla to the Gaza Strip on the Mavi Marmara.

To Reuters he said:

"Our trip to Gaza was a trip of love and God was with us. Israel by its actions had rightly drawn world outrage over its brutality against unarmed people carrying a message of love to an innocent occupied people under siege."

However, Reuters does not fail to mention in this article that this "peace-loving" Bischop was imprisoned by Israel in 1974 and later deported.

Camera has more and dug into his past:

Capucci was arrested by Israeli police on Aug. 18, 1974 and charged with smuggling weapons into the West Bank. The following day the New York Times reported that Capucci, who was born and raised in Syria, was accused of “acting as undercover liaison man between Al Fatah guerrilla group [in Lebanon] and Palestinian guerilla cells” in the West Bank [see also the article below as published in Star-News - Aug 19, 1974 , Suz.] . According to a Times summary, police reported that

large quantities of weapons and explosives were found hidden in his Mercedes sedan in Aug after he returned from visit to Lebanon. Source says Capucci was associated with abortive incident in May during Sec Kissinger's visit in which 3 Katyusha rockets were aimed at the center of Jerusalem. Rockets were discovered before they went off.

Later that month (Aug. 24), the Times reported that Capucci had allegedly told Israelis that he was “forced into guerrilla service by threats of blackmail.” Capucci told the Israelis that he was threatened with physical violence and “the disclosure of actions that might jeopardize his position” within the church. The Times also reported that Capucci faced charges of being accessory to murder because three men who were accused of murdering a Jerusalem taxi driver obtained their weapons from one of Capucci's drop points.

During the trial, Capucci refused to give a statement or sworn evidence because he said Jerusalem was Arab territory and that “Israeli law does not apply in the city” (New York Times, Oct. 30, 1974).

Eventually, Capucci was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He spent two years in prison before the Israeli government released him after a special request from the Vatican. On Nov. 4, 1977 the Washington Post reported from Jerusalem about Capucci's impending release:

Demands for Capucci's release have turned up regularly in the lists submitted by airplane hijackers, including the Entebbe hijackers, but where the threats have failed, a personal letter from Pope Paul has apparently succeeded. …. The price Israel extracted from the Vatican for Capucci's release was a personal letter from the Pope which, according to officials here, contains some admission of Capucci's guilt and the acknowledgement that he received a fair trial. At the very least, sources said, the letter cannot be construed as a denial of his guilt. The appeal is being made on humanitarian grounds.

The understanding with the Vatican, according to Israeli sources, is that Capucci will not be allowed to make propaganda for the Arabs against Israel and that he is to be posted to a place outside the Middle East.
….

There seems to be very little question that Capucci was in fact smuggling arms for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and at least one Israeli is thought to have died as a result. The PLO denies his guilt and has declared him a martyr, but privately many PLO members do not bother to deny his guilt and deplore his carelessness in getting caught.
.…

Capucci has been held in the maximum security prison in Ramleh since his conviction, according to diplomatic sources who have visited him, and has been accorded better treatment than the average prisoner.

Israel's demand that Capucci would not propagandize was likely a response to a letter he wrote from prison which was published in a number of venues including the Journal of Palestine Studies. In the letter, Capucci portrays Israel as violating and desecrating the Holy Land, undermining the Al Aska Mosque and violating the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. “Our most precious land has been desecrated and we have shuddered with repulsion to see it happen.”

Upon his release from Israeli prison on November 4, 1977, Capucci was assigned to serve Melkite communities in Latin America (Washington Post, Dec. 23, 1977). “His assignment to a post outside the Middle East was thought to be a condition of his release,” the Post reiterated.

On May 8, 1979, the Washington Post reported that Capucci “surprised the Vatican and irked Israel by attending a Palestine Liberation Organization Meeting in Damascus. The Vatican reportedly has told Israel it will try to keep him out of the Middle East.”

During the Iran hostage crisis, Capucci was sent to Iran to ascertain the condition of the Americans held in Tehran. His presence was not welcome by the American hostages. On Jan. 29, 1981 the New York Times reported the following about Capucci's visit to the hostages in Iran:

From his home in Olyphant, Pa., Michael J. Metrinko, political officer, criticized Archbishop Hilarion Capucci of the Melkite Church of the Eastern Rite. He said the Archbishop, who made one trip with Father Rupiper [another priest who had visited the hostages], had seen a few well-treated prisoners ''and spent the rest of the time enjoying himself with the guards.''

''I tried to tell Capucci what things were like, and he just went into a diatribe about how bad things were in Israeli prisons,'' Mr. Metrinko said.

Hilarion Capucci, man of peace.

Such a peaceful man, indeed! At least he admits he did not serve the years he should have served in jail. To the Brisbane Times he said:

''They warned if I tried to return again they would lock me up for the eight years of the jail sentence which I did not serve,'' he told the Herald.

''I would prefer to be in a small jail in Palestine than in the bigger prison of exile.''

Israel let him go, though.

"Enjoy the 'Bridge'" - Turkish op-ed slams Erdogan's love of Hamas

From Burak Bekdil at Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper (English edition):

From the first day under the rule of an Islamist elite, Turkey was bound to be a “Muslim bridge between the East and East.” It is becoming one, if it was not already. Those Western diplomats who wholeheartedly believed in the bridge between the West and East tale… those who wholeheartedly believed in the “Turkey-is-an-honest-broker-between-Israel-and Hamas/Syria” tale deserve the finest of all decorations and promotions for their incredible prophesy and reason, including early retirement and postings to challenging capitals such as Bujumbura, Belmopan, Malabo, Suva, Melekeok, Sao Tome and Nuku’alofa (though they are lucky I am not anyone’s minister).

Forget the silly “bridge talk.” The inescapable truth is that Turkey as an honest broker between Israel and Hamas or between Israel and Syria is tantamount to Israel as an honest broker between Turkey and Israel.

A few days ago, the Washington Post reminded its readers that Hamas had killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings and other attacks, and that most Western countries considered it a terrorist organization. But what does the chief engineer of the bridge between the West and East think of Hamas?

At a public rally where anti-Israeli emotions were running high, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan shouted loud and clear that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Its members are, Mr. Erdoğan argued at the weekend, resistance fighters. The prime minister’s justification is that Hamas cannot be a terrorist organization because it was democratically-elected.

That could be a dangerous precedent. I think the immediate and wisest thing for the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, to do is to run for the next Turkish elections under the name PKK. Murat Karayılan and his comrades in arms will be recognized as democratically-elected politicians and not terrorists by Mr. Erdoğan when they comfortably win seats in Southeast Turkey.

What, then, makes the Israeli government a “terrorist state” in the eyes of Mr. Erdoğan? Did the Israeli government seize power by force? Was it not “democratically elected?”

In the meantime, what did the head of the “humanitarian aid organization” that spearheaded the Gaza flotilla tell a crowd that looked more like an army of jihadists than volunteers? Listen to Bülent Yıldırım, “the ace” humanitarian activist:

“Last night [the night of the Israeli raid on the flotilla] everything in the world changed, and everything is progressing toward Islam. Anyone who does not stand alongside Palestine – his throne will be toppled!”

See, typical humanitarian aid activist language. I am sure the believers of the bridge tale will also believe Mr. Yıldırım is the Muslim reincarnation of Mother Teresa.