Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: flotilla

Showing posts with label flotilla. Show all posts

Saturday, November 12, 2022

11/12 Links: Lapid slams UN after pro-PLO measure advances, calls move 'prize for terrorist organizations'; To anti-Zionists, Ben Gvir is not a problem, he is an opportunity

From Ian:

Lapid slams UN, calls pro-Palestinian vote 'prize for terrorist organizations'

Israel lambasted the United Nations on Saturday after a key committee approved a draft resolution Friday calling on the International Court of Justice to urgently issue its opinion on the legal consequences of supposedly denying the Palestinian people the right to self-determination as a result of Israel's actions since the 1967 Six-Day War.

The measure was vehemently opposed by Israel, which argued it would destroy any chance of reconciliation with the Palestinians.

"This step will not change the reality on the ground, nor will it help the Palestinian people in any way; it may even result in an escalation. Supporting this move is a prize for terrorist organizations and the campaign against Israel," Prime Minister Yair Lapid said in a statement, adding that "the Palestinians want to replace negotiations with unilateral steps. They are again using the United Nations to attack Israel."

The vote in the General Assembly's Special Political and Decolonization Committee was 98-17, with 52 abstentions. The resolution will now go to the 193-member assembly for a final vote before the end of the year, when it is virtually certain of approval.

The draft cites Israel's supposed violation of Palestinian rights to self-determination "from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the holy city of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures."

It would ask the court for an opinion on how these Israeli policies and practices "affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all states and the United Nations from this status."

The International Court of Justice, also known as the world court, is one of the UN's main organs and is charged with settling disputes between countries. Its opinions are not binding.

"Israel strongly rejects the Palestinian resolution at the United Nations. This is another unilateral Palestinian move which undermines the basic principles for resolving the conflict and may harm any possibility for a future process," Lapid tweeted and thanked that handful of countries that voted against the resolution with Israel. "We call upon on all the countries that supported yesterday's proposal to reconsider their position and oppose it when it's voted upon in the General Assembly. The way to resolve the conflict does not pass through the corridors of the UN or other international bodies," he continued.

Jonathan Tobin: Don’t apologize for Ben-Gvir or anything else about Israel

When Netanyahu became prime minister again in 2009 and in the 12 years that followed, when there was no thought of Ben-Gvir being a minister, the same arguments about Israeli policies being oppressive and alienating American Jews were heard over and over again.

During this time, as the anti-Semitic BDS movement gain footholds on American college campuses and on the left-wing of the Democratic Party, there was no talk about Ben-Gvir or the evils of Israel being governed by right-wing and religious parties.

To the contrary, the so-called centrists of Israeli politics—Lapid and Gantz—were just as reviled by those who spread the “apartheid state” smear as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are today. The same claims about a mythical old “good” Israel being destroyed were made by those who opposed Netanyahu.

Those who think one Jewish state on the planet is one too many didn’t need Religious Zionists in Israel’s cabinet to be convinced that Israel shouldn’t exist. American Jews who are embarrassed by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich were already embarrassed by Netanyahu and even some of his left-leaning opponents in the Knesset. Their failure to magically make the conflict with the Palestinians disappear has been cited by those who note a decline in support for Israel in the years since the collapse of the Oslo peace process, and even before that while the delusion that it might succeed was still alive.

This goes beyond the fact that the claims that Smotrich and Ben-Gvir are fascists is without real substance. As I’ve noted previously, the talk about the winners of last week’s election being enemies of democracy is just an echo of the Democratic Party talking points about Republicans in the U.S. and just as specious. Whatever one may think of either man, their party doesn’t oppose democracy.

None of that matters because this discussion isn’t rooted in the facts about Israel or those who will make up its next government. Rather, it is an expression of unease with the reality of a Jewish state that must deal with a messy and insoluble conflict with the Palestinians as well as one where the majority of its Jews don’t think or look like your typical liberal Jewish Democrat.

Israel-haters will work for its destruction no matter who is its prime minister or the composition of the government. As has always been the case, the anti-Semites don’t need any new excuses for their efforts to besmirch and delegitimize the Jewish state.

One needn’t support Netanyahu or his partners to understand any of this.

Rather than apologizing for Ben-Gvir or the other aspects of Israeli reality that make readers of The New York Times cringe, those who care about the Jewish state and its people need to stop longing for an Israel which looks like them and embrace the one that actually exists. By buying into the disingenuous claims that this government will be less worthy of their support than its predecessors, they are merely falling into a trap set for them by anti-Semites.

Those who support the right of a Jewish state to exist should stop apologizing for it not conforming to some idealized liberal vision of Zionism, and understand that the people who voted for Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir are just as deserving of respect and representation as they are.

Fred Maroun: To anti-Zionists, Ben Gvir is not a problem, he is an opportunity

While Ben Gvir calls for Palestinian terrorists to be expelled from Israel, we know that Arab entities (including the Jordan-occupied West Bank and the Egypt-occupied Gaza) indiscriminately expelled all Jewish residents decades ago. We also know that Israel’s enemies are “bent on wiping the Jewish state and its inhabitants off the map” (as Canadian National Post columnist John Robson put it). As racist and as anti-democratic as Israel’s far right is, it is nothing compared to Israel’s enemies. That is of course cold comfort to those who are genuinely concerned about Ben Gvir and his ilk, but it points to a double standard.

Criticizing Ben Gvir and the Israeli extreme right while giving a pass to far worse Palestinian groups is a double standard. It sets high expectations of Jews while setting much lower expectations of others. It is obviously a form of antisemitism.

Using Ben Gvir to demonize Israel is not a new concept. Before Ben Gvir and the Israeli extreme right became popular, it was Netanyahu and his Likud party who were the favorite target of anti-Zionists. Anti-Zionism was not born with Ben Gvir’s entry into Israeli politics, nor was it born with Netanyahu’s entry into Israeli politics. It has existed ever since Israel exists. Anti-Zionism was just as strong, and perhaps even stronger, when Israel was governed by socialists like David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir.

In essence, there are two types of criticisms of Ben Gvir. There is the criticism that aims to make Israel better (or at least not worse). This criticism comes from Zionists in Israel and abroad. And there is the criticism that uses Ben Gvir as a new and more convenient way to demonize Israel. This criticism comes from anyone who hates Israel and does not give a fig about Israeli Arabs but looks on with glee as Ben Gvir weakens the fabric of Israeli society.

To Zionists, Ben Gvir is dangerous for several reasons. He is likely to weaken Western support for Israel, he is likely to weaken Israeli democracy, and he is likely to increase Israel’s investment in West Bank settlements which make a one-state bi-national solution increasingly likely. To Zionists, Ben Gvir is a problem. But to anti-Zionists, these are all reasons to celebrate. To them, Ben Gvir isn’t a problem, he’s an opportunity.

11/10 Links Pt2: How not to fight Antisemitism; Pro-Palestinian organizations plan another flotilla to Gaza; Why Ivy League Schools Get an “F” on Campus Antisemitism

From Ian:

The One Week of World War II That Gave Rise to the Modern Middle East

This week marks the 80th anniversary of three seismic events in North Africa that would change the shape of the entire Middle East. On November 8, 1942, Britain and the U.S. launched Operation Torch—the invasion of French North Africa (today Morocco and Algeria). Germany responded the next day by sending its forces to Tunisia, which until then had remained under Vichy control. Then, on November 11, Britain defeated the Nazis at El Alamein in Egypt—winning their first major victory of the war. Robert Satloff reflects on the long-term consequences of these events:
[T]he most lasting impact of the Nazi presence in Tunisia was to give Arabs an up-close look at a model of all-powerful government infused with supremacist ideology. Along with the 1941 arrival in Berlin of the Jerusalem mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini and Iraqi putschist Rashid Ali, both forced to flee from Baghdad, the Tunisia experience would play a role in building two movements that competed for power in the Middle East for decades to follow—the radical Arab nationalism of Gamal Abdul Nasser and Saddam Hussein and the Islamist extremism of Osama bin Ladin and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Whether both of these movements have been flushed from the Arab political system—or are just passing through a period of reassessment, retrenchment and rebirth—is one of the region’s most profound uncertainties.

As recent scholarship shows, the Germans had designs on Egypt and the Levant that went beyond the purely strategic objectives of controlling the Suez Canal, the eastern Mediterranean, and the oil fields of Arabia. In fact, there is convincing evidence that the Nazis planned to follow on Rommel’s expected sweep into Cairo and then onto Jerusalem with the extermination of the Jewish communities of Egypt, Palestine, and beyond. If the Panzers were not defeated in the Western Desert, this would likely have added more than 600,000 additional Jews to the Holocaust death toll.

This would have aborted any hope of the Zionist dream for a “Jewish national home” in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. The near annihilation of the Jews of Europe fed the desire for Jewish sovereignty; the annihilation of the Jews of the Levant would have killed it. Israel would never have been.

The Schlesinger Diaries - new and troubling revelations

Fourteen years after the passing of Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., his diaries continue to provide historians with important new information. The latest beneficiary is John A. Farrell, whose biography of Ted Kennedy contains disturbing new details concerning the Chappaquiddick cover-up, which Farell obtained by gaining access to unpublished sections of Schlesinger’s diaries.

My own experiences with Schlesinger and his diaries concerned a different American political leader, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The information that emerged was deeply troubling, to say the least.

“We Have No Jewish Blood”

My first encounter with Schlesinger was related to a meeting that President Roosevelt held on August 4, 1939, with a political ally, Sen. Burton Wheeler (D-Montana). They discussed possible Democratic candidates for president and vice president in the event FDR did not seek re-election in 1940; Wheeler composed a memo for his private files recounting their conversation.

According to the memo, FDR dismissed the idea of vice president Jack Garner as the party’s presidential nominee on the grounds that he was too conservative: “[Roosevelt] said ‘I do not want to see a reactionary democrat nominated.’ The President said, ‘I love Jack Garner personally. He is a lovable man,’ but he said, ‘he could not get the n—- vote, and he could not get the labor vote’.” (Wheeler did not use the dashes.)

The president also expressed doubt about the viability of a ticket composed of Secretary of State Cordell Hull for president and Democratic National Committee chairman Jim Farley for vice president. Sen. Wheeler wrote:

I said to the President someone told me that Mrs. Hull was a Jewess, and I said that the Jewish-Catholic issue would be raised [if Hull was nominated for president, and Farley, a Catholic, was his running mate]. He [FDR] said, “Mrs. Hull is about one quarter Jewish.” He said, “You and I, Burt, are old English and Dutch stock. We know who our ancestors are. We know there is no Jewish blood in our veins, but a lot of these people do not know whether there is Jewish blood in their veins or not.”

The memo is located in Wheeler’s papers at Montana State University. The file also contains two letters sent to Wheeler from Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1959. At the time, Schlesinger was working on The Politics of Upheaval, the final installment of his three-volume history of the New Deal. According to the letters, Sen. Wheeler sent Schlesinger a copy of his 1939 memorandum on the “Jewish blood” conversation with FDR. Schlesinger, after reviewing the memo, wrote to Wheeler that the document “offer[s] valuable sidelights on history.”

Nevertheless, Schlesinger never quoted FDR’s remarks about “Jewish blood” in any of the many books and articles he subsequently wrote about Roosevelt and his era. Ironically, in one of those articles (published in Newsweek in 1994), Schlesinger specifically defended FDR against any suspicion that he was unsympathetic to Jews; and he approvingly quoted Trude Lash, a friend of the Roosevelts, as saying, “FDR did not have an anti-Semitic bone in his body.”

Imagining a Jewish Atom Bomb

The early interest in a nuclear reactor, which originated with Weizmann’s appeals to Oppenheimer, passed from Weizmann to Ben-Gurion via Bergmann. It seems that at some point during 1948, Weizmann’s views on nuclear technology began to change: he moved away from ideas of practical science to “pure science.” The existing sources do not directly outline how Weizmann’s thinking evolved, leaving room for some speculation. It is possible that Weizmann felt compelled to join the community of scientists, like Einstein, who by now publicly rejected the development of an atomic arsenal and its handling by the US government, which in their view was not making the required progress toward nuclear disarmament. Another explanation relates to Weizmann’s political decline and his sense of betrayal by his former close confidante, Bergmann.

During 1947, Bergmann drew closer to Ben-Gurion, both personally and professionally. According to his biographers, as of the fall of 1947 Bergmann became “completely absorbed in the task of meeting the immediate wartime needs of Israel, and any plans which he might have been formulating with regard to nuclear energy had to be put on the back burner.” As the academic director of the Weizmann Institute of Science, Bergmann championed the institute’s participation in the Yishuv’s war effort. During the War of Independence, in 1948, Bergman and other scientists persuaded Ben-Gurion that “a national nuclear project was within Israel’s scientific abilities.” Weizmann’s declining interest in atomic energy took place in parallel with Ben-Gurion’s increasing interest in the matter and the close cooperation between Ben-Gurion and Bergmann. It is possible that growing resentment toward Bergmann, who crossed the line into Ben-Gurion’s camp, in some part motivated Weizmann’s rejection of Bergmann’s nuclear activism. In 1951, Bergmann would become Ben-Gurion’s personal scientific adviser and later the chair of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (1952-1966).

Ben-Gurion first publicly mentioned his fascination with the atom on Sept. 11, 1948, citing the “miraculous make-up” of the atom and the “enormous capacity hidden in its dismantlement.” In March 1949, Ben-Gurion held a meeting with Moshe Moris Sordin, a French nuclear scientist raised in the Yishuv. Sordin, who in 1945 took part in the establishment of the French Atomic Energy Commission, was secretly brought to Israel to meet with Ben-Gurion and discuss “the future of nuclear reactors.” In a 1986 interview, Sordin recalled that at their meeting Ben-Gurion demonstrated deep understanding of and interest in nuclear technology. Around that time, Bergmann also convinced Ben-Gurion to send six promising Israeli graduate students to study nuclear physics abroad.

It was Ben-Gurion, together with Bergmann and the young Shimon Peres, who pushed forward the Israeli nuclear program during the 1950s, bringing about the establishment of two research reactors in Soreq and Dimona. Of the three, it was Peres, the political operator, who cemented the nuclear relationship between France and Israel, paving the way for the French agreement to build the Dimona reactor in the days leading up to the 1956 Suez crisis.

On Feb. 14, 1949, a fragile and almost blind Weizmann inaugurated the opening session of the Constituent Assembly of the new State of Israel. No longer enthusiastic about the role of the Jewish scientists in the Manhattan Project, a more cautious, weary Weizmann took the stand. Though his speech was short and concise, he included in it, remarkably, a warning against the dangers of the atomic bomb. He framed this as the result of scientific development lacking any moral vision:

Yet, for all the decisive importance of science, it is not by science alone that we shall win through. Let us build a new bridge between science and the spirit of man. Where there is no vision the people perish. We have seen what scientific progress leads to when it is not inspired by moral vision—the atomic bomb threatening to destroy the entire planet.

Unpublished memoir passages shed light on Weizmann’s views regarding nuclear technology and its benefits, and how these relate to its so-called Jewish heritage:

“If human folly reaches such a stage that atomic energy will be used extensively in the next war about which one hears so much talk, it will be said that the Jews have conspired to destroy the world. If, however, as I hope and believe is the case, atomic energy will be guided into constructive channels, and humanity will enjoy the benefits of unlimited sources of energy ... I doubt whether people will remember the great number of Jews who will have helped to bring these results about.”

Unpacked: Operation Opera: How Israel Destroyed Iraq's Nuclear Power | History of Israel Explained

On the night before the holiday of Shavuot 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin shocked his cabinet by announcing they would be launching a surprise attack called “Operation Opera” on a nuclear reactor in Iraq, known as Osirak.

Should the operation fail, the lives of four million Israelis would be at risk, however Begin chose to go ahead with the plan. Despite the large criticism Israel faced in the aftermath, Operation Opera was successful in protecting Israel and preventing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from building nuclear weapons.

Hamas is just as involved in European left wing anti-Israel activities as leftist Palestinian groups

During the past few weeks, Israel's Channel 13 has been showing a five part documentary, "Shtula" ("Double Agent") It features a young Swedish woman who came to Israel as a tourist, fell in love with the country, and eventually was recruited by the Ad Kan organization to infiltrate Palestinian "human rights" groups.

With multiple hidden cameras, the woman captured 3000 hours of footage that was turned into this documentary series. Much of it is in English.

The woman eventually becomes one of the activists aboard the "freedom boat" that tried to go to Gaza in 2018. She meets with "human rights' activists who admit that they would love to kill all Israelis.

On the way, she meets with Hamas members, including even the one-armed head of Hamas in Europe, Amin Abu Rashid. In an almost unreal sequence, Rashid drive her to his office, describing how he lost his arm in Lebanon. At the office, she witnesses someone give him a wad of cash, and he describes how Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood raises millions of euros from mosques all over Europe to send to Gaza. She even films some of the paper receipts.

Rashid was not only involved with this "freedom boat" but also was behind funding the boats in previous Gaza flotillas, which he freely talks about with his new, attractive Swedish friend.

We know well about the connections between so-called human rights groups and leftist groups like the PFLP. NGO Monitor describes the links between the leaders of the 2018 "freedom boat" that this operative was on and various Palestinian socialist groups.

However, the connection between Hamas and the leftist "human rights groups" in Europe is little told. After all, Islamist groups would seem to have little in common, philosophically or politically, with the Left.

Clearly, this is not the case - Hamas and the PFLP have something in common that cuts across ideological lines.

They hate Jews.

I haven't watched the whole series yet - it is five hours long - but it looks amazing. I hope that it gets English subtitles.

(h/t Yoel)

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.

Read all about it here!

8/07 Links Part 2: BDS Fail at Delta, Vatican Slams Water's anti-Semitism, Soros Funds Conflict in Israel

From Ian:

Vatican op-ed slams anti-Semitism at pig-flying musician’s concert

“The spirit and the style of the Werchter Rock festival was visible, with the fans who had every right to listen to music that they enjoy,” Cristiana Dobner wrote in a weekend edition of Osservatore Romano, referring to the July 20 concert. “But did they also have the right to draw the Star of David on the back of a pig and not be reported? … We continue to talk about the respect for every religion and every human being, yet we keep falling into these shameful situations.”
The op-ed, headlined “Unrestrained anti-Semitism at a rock festival,” did not mention former Pink Floyd front man Waters, 69, by name. In his act he used a huge inflated balloon in the shape of a wild boar. A Star of David was prominently visible on it, as were other symbols, including a hammer and sickle, crosses and a dollar sign.

Carol Hunt: I'll ask this only once: What has Israel ever done to us?

You see, I've read all the histories, so I am aware that after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France divided up the Middle East – creating Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. I know that in 1921 80 per cent of what was called the "Palestinian Mandate" was made into (Trans) Jordan (where currently two million Palestinian refugees live yet only 167,000 are allowed citizenship or are eligible for education and healthcare).
I am aware that in 1948 the UN voted to halve the remaining 20 per cent; Israel was born and immediately invaded by five neighbouring Arab countries whose objective was – and still is – to annihilate it. In 1967, when tiny Israel was forced to pre-empt a massive Arab invasion, the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and the Gaza Strip by Egypt. I know that all current facts and statistics show that Palestinians are treated far better by Israel than other Arab nations –where they are subjected to apartheid discrimination. And I'm aware that if I am to be accepted in polite, liberal society I should keep my mouth shut and just agree – Israel bad, Arabs good.
But in all conscience I can't. I need to know why so many Irish politicians and groups are only "pro-Palestinian" "against Israel", as it were, and say, not Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan or the Arab League?

Embarrassment as Anti-Israel Claims Debunked

Last week, Electronic Intifada, a blog aligned with the BDS movement, announced its latest "victory," claiming that Delta Air Lines had decided to stop serving a snack produced in the Barkan Industrial Zone, due to its location in Samaria. Electronic Intifada claimed that the decision was made after a complaint was lodged by a member of the far-left "Coalition of Women for Peace," publishing what it said was the text of an email in which the airline said that it would be dropping the product. The blog's editor, Ali Abunima, claimed that "Delta Air Lines lawyers ruled that Israeli settlement-made snacks should not be served."
Veteran Israeli activist Avi Mayer, however, was unconvinced, and promptly discovered that claims of a boycott were completely false.

Watchdog Group: Soros Funding Conflict in Israel

OSF also funds Al Haq, an Arab organization based in the Palestinian Authority-controlled city of Ramallah, north of Jerusalem. NGO-Monitor’s researchers described Al-Haq director Shawan Jabarin as “a human rights campaigner by day and a terrorist by night,” who is among the senior members of the PFLP terrorist group.
The extreme-left Israeli group B’Tselem also receives OSF funds. B’Tselem is notorious for publishing one-sided reports, and for inflating Arab civilian casualty figures. For example, the group included hundreds of Hamas policemen in Gaza as “non-combatants,” and counted Sheikh Ahmed Yassin – then the leader of Hamas – as not a definite combatant.

Wal-Mart pushes SodaStream profit up

SodaStream International Ltd. says its second-quarter net income jumped 36%, boosted by strong demand fueled by its launch at Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
The company raised its revenue and profit outlook, pushing shares higher in morning trading.
SodaStream makes beverage carbonation systems that enable consumers to easily transform tap water into carbonated soft drinks and sparkling water.

CiF Watch prompts correction to Guardian publication claim about Israeli immigrants

Per our communication with The Observer’s Readers’ Editor, EPA Photo Agency researched the matter and promptly issued the following the correction:

Attention editors, on July 23rd, 2013 we moved a set of images showing immigrants arriving from New York to Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. We have been made aware of that the part of our caption saying ‘… New immigrants predominately move to Israeli settlements in the West Bank,..’ is wrong and is not supported by figures of the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics that we have received.

BBC Weather doesn’t know in which country Jerusalem is located

If you happen to be looking for the weather forecast for Tel Aviv, you will naturally also be offered the option “Israel”.
But if your search was for Israel’s capital city, well…that city is not located in any country at all according to the BBC.

Arab MK Attends Post-Ramadan Dinner on Marmara

The Turkish IHH organization, which was responsible for the 2010 flotilla aimed at breaking the naval blockade on Gaza, recently hosted a delegation aboard the Mavi Marmara ship, including one elected Arab Israeli Member of Knesset.
The Mavi Marmara is currently docked in Istanbul, where it arrived in December of 2010 after the incident during the flotilla, in which IDF soldiers who were forced to board the ship when it refused orders to change course and head towards the Ashdod Port, were attacked by the IHH activists on board with clubs and knives. The soldiers had no choice but to open fire, leaving nine Turks dead.

Over 50% of Palestinians back peace talks, survey finds

More than half of Palestinians support the resumption of peace talks with Israel, according to a public opinion poll published Tuesday.
The poll – conducted by Alpha International, an organization that aims to help decision-makers take “effective” decisions – also found that jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti would win in a presidential election if Mahmoud Abbas does not run for another term.

SWC to Greek President: Politician’s Swastika Tattoo is Grounds for Banning the Symbol Nationally

Jewish human rights group the Simon Wiesenthal Center on Tuesday called on Greek President Karolos Papoulias to ban the public use of the Swastika after photos surfaced of a high-profile Greek politician sporting a tattoo of the offensive symbol on his shoulder.
The front page of the August 4th edition of Greek’s largest newspaper, Poto Thema, featured the photo, obtained from the Greek Helsinki Monitor, of Golden Dawn Party Member of Parliament and Spokesman, Elias Kasidiàris, on his beach vacation last week.

VIDEO: Muslim IDF Soldier Keeps Watch Over Gaza Border

Watch our exclusive interview with Staff Sergeant Ahmed Inaim, a Bedouin soldier who guards Israel's Gaza border. Staff Sgt. Inaim's brother, who also served as an IDF soldier, was killed in combat several years ago. In 2006, Hamas terrorists injured another one of his brothers when they attacked Israel and kidnapped Gilad Shalit.
Despite his family's sacrifices, Staff Sgt. Inaim remains determined to serve his country. Last week, he spoke with us as he patrolled the Gaza border.

The Guardian wants your refugee story.

Do you have a compelling story to tell about the Jews who fled Arab or Muslim countries as refugees in the years following WWII? If so, The Guardian wants your story. Yes, I kid you not - The Guardian. Why? Because it does not feel it gave a fair shout to some refugees in its timeline by Mona Chalabi published recently (expertly ‘fisked’ by CiF Watch here). That timeline omitted 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries altogether. This is your chance to help set the record straight. But hurry – the deadline is in less than two weeks. Register as a commenter and write-up your story in no more than 250 words.

Treblinka Uprising 70th Anniversary Ceremony Features Last Living Survivor Samuel Willenberg

The site of the Treblinka concentration camp, in Poland, played host to a ceremony this past Friday commemorating 70 years since the Jewish prisoner revolt at the camp that became known as the “Treblinka uprising.”
The ceremony featured Samuel Willenberg, the last living survivor of the uprising, and Israel’s Deputy Minister of Education MK Avi Wortzman.

Yehuda Lev, who smuggled Holocaust survivors to Palestine, dies

Yehuda Lev, an iconoclastic journalist and veteran of World War II and Israel’s War of Independence who established a European underground route to smuggle Holocaust survivors to Palestine, has died.
Lev died Aug. 3 in Providence, Rhode Island, after a prolonged illness. He was 86.

Coke, Yoplait monitor water with Israel’s Blue I products

Israel’s Blue I (pronounced blue eye) had already defined the space for online water-quality monitoring in the early 2000s, before most people heard of smartphones.
Now the company, officially founded in 2003, boasts tens of thousands of its “smart” water systems in factories and municipalities around the world. Blue I smart boxes, based on electro-optics, are about to be installed in several American cities, and are found in about 150 locations throughout Barcelona.
Clients include Yoplait yogurt in France; BASF, the largest chemical company in the world; and 25 Coca-Cola bottling plants — including in India and Israel. Israel’s national water company Mekorot is another Blue I client, as is Israel’s Oil Refineries.

Stand With Us: Israel - Small Country, Big Ideas

"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.