Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, April 23, 2012

Backgrounder: The Israeli-Egyptian gas agreement

Is Egypt's refusal to provide natural gas to Israel a violation of Camp David, as some (including me) said initially, or is it just a business dispute, as Israel is spinning it now?

Here's some background from the book "The Political Economy of Transitions to Peace: A Comparative Perspective" by Galia Press-Barnathan:

This problematic interaction between the Egyptian government and the broader public was also evident in the case of the agreement to supply Israel with natural gas, as mentioned earlier. In 2000, the Israeli govermnent decided to allow the national electric company to negotiate with local and foreign suppliers of natural gas. One of the main contestants for this project was a private company called EMG, which was owned by both a senior Egyptian businessman, Hussein Salem, and a prominent Israeli, Yossi Mimen. Israel's agreement with EMG was for the company to supply natural gas to Israel for a period of up to twenty years, the total value of the purchases forecast to be about $3 billion. This agreement faced opposition in both Israel and Egypt.

In Israel, opposition reflected the classic realist concerns regarding the creation of a dangerous dependence on energy supply from a potentially unreliable or adversarial source. Opponents argued that it was doubtful that the Egyptian government would be willing to vouch for the continued supply of natural gas to Israel if political circumstances became difficult. Furthermore, should the supply of gas be disrupted, the damage to Israel would be very high because, unlike oil, gas cannot be stored in reserves.

In stark contrast to the public debate in Israel regarding the gas deal with Egypt, Egyptian government officials consistently denied foreign reports that such a deal was being negotiated. The Egyptian public knew nothing about the negotiations with Israel, which had been going on for several years. The strategic decision to sell natural gas to Israel was made by President Mubarak, who appreciated the lucrative economic dividend that would result from such a deal. Egypt had significant natural gas reserves and wanted to find buyers. However, the only promising market in the region was that of Israel. Once again, economic logic triumphed. While the treaty was conveniently signed by the private gas company, Israel made an effort to upgrade this economic interaction by calling for an official state-level agreement in which the Egyptian government would ensure a continuous supply of gas. Eventually, the Egyptians agreed to sign a vague memorandum of understanding. When the agreement was finally signed, in July 2005, Israeli journalists attending the ceremony reported the great unease that surrounded the event on the Egyptian side. This unease and complex maneuvering was already apparent in 2002, against the backdrop of the second intifada and severe criticism within Egypt of Israeli policy. President Mubarak announced that he would suspend all nondiplomatic relations with Israel. However, this announcement was not expected to hinder the completion of the gas deal with Israel. The government refused to sever all trade ties in practice because there was a real economic stake involved. This stood in sharp contrast to the public mood at the time. Chambers of commerce and trade organizations repeatedly issued statements of a boycott against Israel, but the government was unwilling to intervene. The head of the import sector at the Cairo Chamber of Commerce, Moustafa Zaki, concluded at the time, "It is up to the people. The government will not interfere. Consumers can refuse to purchase Israeli goods. That's the best we can hope for."

More details from IPS from 2005:

According to the agreement signed by Egyptian Minister of Petroleum Sameh Fahmy and Israeli Minister of Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer at a ceremony Jun. 30, also attended by Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif, Egypt will supply Israel with the gas for 15 years, by way of a maritime pipeline to the southern Israeli town of Ashkelon.

The deal - expected to generate between two billion and three billion U.S. dollars a year in revenue - is to be cemented by a second, final pact, expected in August. The pipeline is slated to begin delivering gas late in 2006.

Although the deal comes at a time of popular anger over Israeli policies, many financial analysts agree that - from a strictly economic standpoint - the move was a practical one. "Economically, it makes good sense," said Nashwa Saleh, head of research at Cairo-based investment house HC Brokerage. "We have more natural gas than we can consume locally - it's smart to export."

Recent estimates have put Egypt's gas reserves as high as three trillion cubic meters.

Talks between Eastern Mediterranean Gas, a private firm jointly owned by an Egyptian businessman and the Israeli Merhav Group, and the state-run Israel Electric Corporation, which intends to buy the gas, have been ongoing since 2001. But an agreement was delayed several times due to ongoing Israeli-Palestinian violence, which made it politically awkward for Cairo to commit to the sale. Meanwhile, given the political sensitivities involved, authorities remained tight-lipped about the discussions.

So while the agreement was technically between a private Egyptian corporation and a state-run Israeli energy company, it was part of a state-level agreement to supply gas - but it was not from Camp David.

Arrest warrant in Lebanon for giving information about Ron Arad

From Naharnet:

Military Examining Magistrate Imad al-Zain issued an arrest warrant on Monday against a Lebanese citizen on charges of contacting Israel.

G.M. is accused of providing Israel with information on missing Israeli military airman Ron Arad.

Arad, an Israeli air force navigator, went missing after he ejected from an F-4 Phantom fighter-bomber during Lebanon's 1975-90 civil war.

He was allegedly captured by the Shiite movement AMAL, headed by Nabih Berri, now parliament speaker.

Israel engaged in lengthy negotiations for the release of the airman but contact was terminated when the Israeli military bombed the south Lebanon village of Maydoun in 1996.

In January 2006, the head of Hizbullah Sayyed Hassan Nassrallah said Arad was probably dead, even though he had no proof.

As part of the deal, Hizbullah agreed to hand over information on Arad's fate within months. Israel was supposed to obtain the information in exchange for freeing Lebanese Samir Kantar, but the agreement was never finalized.

According to reports, Arad probably died in the mid-1990s in Lebanon.

Abbas refusing to speak to Fayyad

Al Quds al Arabi is reporting that there is a "silent crisis" between PA president Mahmoud Abbas and PA prime minister Salam Fayyad.

Last week, Abbas asked Fayyad to deliver a letter to Binyamin Netanyahu outlining the PLO demands to restart peace talks. Fayyad refused, worried that it would damage his image among the people. He was especially concerned because the letter was to be delivered on Prisoners Day and he did not want to appear to be contacting Israel on such a day.

In general, the job of PA prime minister is only concerned with internal matters anyway, and is not an appropriate position to be used for foreign relations - which is the PLO's domain.

According to one report, Fayyad told Abbas that he was not his "mailman."

In the end, the letter was delivered by Saeb Erekat.

Now, Abbas is refusing to speak with Fayyad. He is not answering his calls. Sources say that Fayyad's refusal "crossed all red lines' and their relationship is now in a "deep crisis."

Fatah leaders, who never liked Fayyad, are also pressuring Abbas to use this as a reason to get rid of him.

"Land of Promise" 1924 silent film about Zionist pioneers

The second reel is missing, but it is still over 40 minutes of amazing footage.

100% hasbara.

And 100% true, as hasbara is supposed to be.

An "expert" and a real expert on Iran's anti-nuclear fatwa

A couple of days ago I noted that MEMRI stated that there was no written fatwa by Iran's Supreme Leader Khamanei forbidding nuclear weapons, and MEMRI used that as evidence that the entire fatwa was a myth.

Juan Cole, who has been trying his hardest to pretend that Iran has no nuclear weapons program despite all evidence of how they are hiding both the development of nuclear weapons and the development of rockets that could deliver them, responded, saying that

A fatwa is not like an American law that has to be published in the Congressional Record and in official law books. It is just the conclusion to which a cleric’s reasoning leads him, and which he makes known, even in a letter. In Shiite Islam, laypersons who follow a particular ayatollah are bound by his fatwas. When an ayatollah such as Khamenei delivers oral remarks in public, these have the force of a fatwa and are accepted as such by his followers. That is, Khamenei’s recent statement forbidding nuclear weapons in a speech is in fact a fatwa.

I am no expert in Shiite jurisprudence, so although this seemed strange - that a fatwa could be issued without the legal logic behind it - I don't know enough to argue.

And upon further research it looks like Cole is right in his definition. I found a fascinating paper on this very topic of Khamanei's nuclear fatwa, written by Mehdi Khalaji. Khalaji is a true expert in Shiite law, having studied Shiite theology and jurisprudence for fourteen years in the seminaries of Qom and he further studied the topic in Europe. If he and Cole disagree on the topic, there is no question that Khalaji knows infinitely more. In this case, he agrees with Cole that Khamanei's verbal nuclear fatwa is a real fatwa:

[E]ven though Ayatollah Khamenei has produced no written record on the religious prohibitions pertaining to nuclear weapons, his verbal statements on the subject are considered his religious opinions, or fatwas, and therefore binding on believers.

However, there is a lot more to this than meets the eye. Khalaji goes into great detail on how fatwas can and are regularly changed by the person who issued them, as well as about Taqiyya, which Cole downplays. He also talks about the interplay of politics and Islamic law in Iran. He describes how the Ayatollah Khomeini felt that Islamic law was not mature enough to run a modern government, and that the running of the government is actually more important that Islamic law! In Khomeini's own words:

The government can unilaterally abrogate any religious agreement made by it with the people if it believes that the agreement is against the interests of the country and Islam. The government can prevent any Islamic law—whether related to rituals or not— from being implemented if it sees its implementation as harmful to the interests of Islam.

Khalaji concludes:

In sum, since the ruling jurist has absolute authority and exclusive control in defining regime expediency, he can suspend all Islamic and constitutional laws whenever he chooses to do so. This means that laws have no independent authority; they depend entirely on the Supreme Leader’s validation. In such a system, politics never become normalized through the stable functioning of state institutions. Instead, every situation has the potential to be interpreted as extraordinary and manipulated to the liking of the Supreme Leader, possibly against the decisions of parliament, the president, and the judiciary. Thus what might be called the “politics of the extraordinary” concentrates enormous power in the hands of the ruling jurist and defines the essence of the Islamic Republic.

Supreme Leader Khamenei has stated that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam. But his recent language on the subject has become more equivocal, emphasizing only the prohibition on their use and not on their production or stockpiling. And should the needs of the Islamic Republic or the Muslim umma change, requiring the use of nuclear weapons, the Supreme Leader could just as well alter his position in response. This means that, ultimately, the Islamic Republic is unconstrained— even by religious doctrine—as it moves toward the possible production and storing of nuclear weapons.

In principle, at least, the emergence of maslaha or raison d’état in the ideology of the Islamic Republic represented a step forward in recognizing the realities of running a modern state. The principle might have been channeled toward allowing the parliament and president to establish a shared understanding of the “national interest” that could strengthen those institutions and foster nascent democratic processes. In practice, however, maslaha has become a means of freeing the political system from the hold of Islamic law, further undermining Iran’s democratic institutions and consolidating the Supreme Leader’s control over state politics, in effect laying the foundation for a clerical/military dictatorship in Iran. Iranian nuclear decisionmaking, therefore, bears the significant imprint of one man’s personality and politics—an imprint that may be unaffected by the will of other men, the decisions of other institutions, or, most ironically, the legal scruples or moral dictates of his own religion.

(Maslaha sounds a little like the Jewish concept of hora'at sha'ah, but the latter is meant to be used in only truly extraordinary and unique circumstances, while Maslaha seems to be much broader and less constricted in how it is used.)

What it boils down to is that Khamanei truly is the Supreme Leader, and he can do whatever he wants - suspend Islamic law, change his mind, lie, bypass all government institutions - if he believes that it is necessary to help run the country.

Which means that his fatwa, while apparently legitimate, is literally meaningless. There is literally nothing that binds him to even his own legal rulings. Actions are the only way that he can be judged, because he has no moral reason to keep his word.

Hit job on Israel anticipated on "60 Minutes" tonight

From CBS' preview of tonight's 60 Minutes:

Christians of the Holy Land - Bob Simon reports on the slow exodus from the Holy Land of Palestinian Christians, who say life in the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become too difficult. Harry Radliffe is the producer.

It looks like this is going to be another of those typical news articles on how horribly Israel treats Christians in the territories, the type that usually crop up every Christmas.

The meme goes like this: Christians are leaving Palestinian territories, and this has accelerated since the second intifada, so it must be Israel's fault. In Bethlehem, where they used to be the majority, they can no longer maintain their businesses because of stifling Israeli restrictions.

What the meme doesn't explain is that the Muslim population of Bethlehem has actually increased in the same time period, as has the total population of Bethlehem. So how can Israeli policies only be affecting Christians and not their Muslim neighbors who also have businesses and family there? (I looked at the demographic issue in Bethlehem in 2007.)

In reality, it is the Muslims who are forcing the Christians out, exactly as they are in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and every other Middle East country - except for Israel. Here are some links to articles over the years that show this to be true:

In 2005, Muslims instigated a pogrom against the Christian village of Taybeh over rumors of an affair beteeen a Christian man and a Muslim woman. (The woman was murdered by her own family.)

In early 2007, many Christians in Bethlehem started talking openly about how they are persecuted by their Muslim neighbors - including how the Muslims were stealing their land.

Similarly, it is notable that in 1967, Fatah - the leading political party of the PA - directly threatened Christian pilgrims to Bethlehem.

This 2008 article goes into great detail of the Muslim persecution of Christians in the territories.

In Gaza, the few remaining Christians are keeping a low profile and hoping that Hamas doesn't notice them.

Michael Oren's article this past Easter is a must-read.

Bethlehem is not the only city where Muslims have forced out the Christian majority. Ramallah was also once a Christian town, and now there are virtually none left.

Chances are, 60 Minutes tonight will tell you none of this.

UPDATE: The transcript is here, video here. It sort of went nowhere.

Egypt says it is ending natural gas deal with Israel

From Al Arabiya/Reuters

Egypt has notified Israel that it is “terminating” a controversial gas supply deal, Ampal-American Israel Corporation, which owns a stake in a company that exports natural gas from Egypt to Israel, said on Sunday.

Ampal said that its international partners in Egypt-Israel gas deal are considering legal options against Egypt, according to Reuters.

Ampal issued a press release calling this termination "unlawful":

Ampal-American Israel Corporation AMPL, a holding company in the business of acquiring and managing interests in various businesses, announced today that it has been advised by East Mediterranean Gas Co. ("EMG"), in which Ampal has a 12.5% interest, that Egyptian General Petroleum Corporation ("EGPC") and the Egyptian Natural Gas Holding Company ("EGAS") notified EMG that they were terminating the Gas Supply and Purchase Agreement (the "Source GSPA") between the parties. EMG considers the termination attempt unlawful and in bad faith, and consequently demanded its withdrawal. EMG, Ampal, and EMG's other international shareholders are considering their options and legal remedies as well as approaching the various Governments.

As previously disclosed, EMG initiated arbitration against EGPC and EGAS in October 2011 due to EGPC and EGAS's long-standing failure to supply the gas quantities owed under the Source GSPA. EMG is seeking compensation from EGPC and EGAS for damages resulting from their contractual breaches. EMG already has further requested that an arbitral tribunal issue an order that EGPC/EGAS perform their obligations under the Source GSPA and rule that EGPC and EGAS are not entitled to terminate the agreement. The arbitration is ongoing. In addition, as previously disclosed, Ampal and certain other international shareholders of EMG have initiated the process of submitting claims against the Government of Egypt under various bilateral treaties for the protection of investments.

Last year Israel's National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said that the gas agreement with Egypt is the most important outcome of the Camp David Accords.

But, hey, how important is a signed agreement, anyway? It's not like the Arab side feels that they have to obey agreements with the Zionist entity, do they?

The US reaction to this flagrant dismissal of one of the key components of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty will be important. Remember, Israel gave up some valuable oil fields in the Sinai as part of the Camp David accords.

Not important at all but slightly interesting would be Jimmy Carter's reaction, since he takes all credit for Camp David to begin with. Will his hate for Israel trump his belief in the agreement?

Links and snippets

Secret freedom at Tel Aviv’s ‘Palestinian Queer Party’

One of the drag queens yelled at me to stop photographing — it could be dangerous for them if someone sees the pictures, I was told, because many of those at the party are still in the closet.

HPMonitor compares the number of comments for protester beatup stories.

Protester Beatdown Roundup
It's a little depressing how many articles you find when you enter "protester beaten" into the Huffington Post's search engine.Ready to take a little trip down memory lane?

Iran a belligerent occupier!!

Iran Picks Awkward Time to Escalate Gulf Tensions

“The UAE maintains that Iran occupied the three islands in November 1971 in the cover of the night during the short window between the British withdrawal from the Trucial States and the announcement of the UAE as a federation of these states. The UAE archives carry pre-invasion photos of the islands with the flag of the UAE emirate of Sharjah hoisted.

“Throughout the years the UAE has called upon Iran to either resolve the dispute through direct negotiations or through the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Iran continuously maintains that, "according to international documents and historical background, there is no doubt about Iranian ownership of the three islands" adding that the ICJ has "no jurisdiction" over the islands.”

The Real Iron Wall, where the myths of Jabotinsky are debunked.

A Druze is appointed Israel's ambassador to New Zealand.

(h/t Ian, Yoel)

Jordanian director criticizes Saudi network for showing "The Pianist"

Saudi Arabia's MBC2 decided to show the Oscar winning Holocaust drama, "The Pianist," over the weekend.

And Jordan's Ammon News is very upset about it.

TV director and critic Amer Gharaibeh criticized the channel, saying that it is promoting a Jewish agenda and inaccurately describing the Holocaust. He is particularly upset that the film empathizes with the Jews being slaughtered, and makes the viewers do so as well - obviously a terrible crime to this critic.

Scenes where German soldiers wantonly shoot Jews are described by this reviewer as utterly unrealistic and unnecessary.

Gharaibeh complains that the film "emotionally appeals to the world about Jews."

And for what purpose? As he writes, "Exposure to films like this and others cause harm to the Arab and Islamic world and promotes other elements."

Palestine Times has an article quoting a Professor Abdul Sattar Qassem as warning Palestinian Arab universities against accepting money from USAID - because it comes with strings attached.

USAID spends millions of dollars to promote excellence in teaching and other programs at Palestinian Arab universities. But Qassem sees a dark side:

America requires the recipients of aid not to have been previously arrested by the Zionist occupation, and not to be affiliated with, Palestinian resistance groups. The aid is meant to favor negotiations with the Zionists, and the search for a peaceful solution; it is in favor of two-state solution; and even more dangerous it supports normalization with the Zionists, [for example] with scientific cooperation...the universities that [receive aid from the] U.S. must normalize relations with the Zionist entity, and participate in many activities with the Zionist universities and academics.

USAID funds dozens of projects in the territories, at a cost of some $200 million a year.

Last year a PalArab newspaper accused USAID of being a spy agency and accused it of similar crimes that Professor Qassem is accusing it of, even saying that the only people who receive USAID funding after the terrorists are weeded out are those who have abandoned their national heritage.

"Why luvvies and liberals hate Israel" (Brendan O'Neill)

This article is behind the paywall at The Australian, temporarily available at the author's website:

A new ailment is spreading through the chattering classes. Symptoms include an aversion to art or literature created in Israel, an intolerance of all foodstuffs produced in Israel, and an allergy to the Israeli flag, the Israeli football team and Israeli professors. If you or any of your friends have those symptoms, get help: it is possible you’re suffering from Israel Sensitivity Disorder.

This most middle-class of maladies is widespread in respectable circles. It has flared up very badly in Britain during the past week, with some of the most prominent carriers seeking to keep an Israeli theatre company off this sceptred isle.

Habima, Israel’s national theatre company, is due to perform at the World Shakespeare Festival at London’s famous Globe Theatre. Theatre troupes from every corner of the earth will be there, including from the new nation of South Sudan (whose actors will perform Cymbeline in Juba Arabic) and from New Zealand (in the first Maori-language performance of Troilus and Cressida). Some authoritarian states are involved, too, including China and Zimbabwe.

But it is Habima’s involvement, and Habima’s involvement alone, that has riled Britain’s luvvies and liberals. In a letter to The Guardian, actress Emma Thompson and others said they were “dismayed” at the inclusion of Habima in this global festival. Apparently, by inviting Habima, the Globe is “associating itself with policies of exclusion practised by the Israeli state”.

That is, it is infecting itself with the Israeli toxin; it is failing in its duty to keep itself clean of any contact with Israel and Israeli artists, as every member of decent society apparently must now do.

This extraordinary (and thankfully failed) attempt to ban a theatre company from a global festival follows on from last year’s ugly interruption of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra at the Proms, an eight-week season of classical music that takes place at the Royal Albert Hall every summer. Musicians from across the world take part. But when the influential Israel-bashers heard that an orchestra from that country was taking part, their hives started to itch.

And so these “philistines for Palestine” (as an editorial in The Australian labelled them) jeered and shouted “shame” as the orchestra started to play. Watch the video on YouTube. It’s a truly depressing spectacle, as the orchestra’s solo violinist tries to make his music heard above the din of those who think that nothing Israeli should be seen or heard in polite society.

These censorious attacks on Israel’s art fit neatly with broader campaigns to boycott its academics and produce.

Across the West, anti-Israel agitators demand that universities refuse to have any dealings with their Israeli counterparts while right-on shoppers make a virtue of the fact they never buy Israeli oranges or coffee.

There’s something very ugly in this PC loathing of everything Israeli-made. You don’t have to look far into the historical records, certainly here in Europe, to see that nothing good comes from the boycotting of shops run by “those people” or the attempted ghetto-isation of their culture and practices. Surely Britain’s anti-Israel luvvies have at least watched Roman Polanski’s The Pianist, the Holocaust-based tale of a man deprived of his true love - making music - because of what he is?

Of course the drowning out of Israeli music at the Royal Albert Hall and the attempted exclusion of an Israeli theatre company from the Globe are nothing like putting Jews into a real, walled-off ghetto. But all involve a process of ghetto-isation, a process of marginalising people on the basis of their origins.

The aversion to all things Israeli has gone way beyond a normal political boycott. The obsession with avoiding Israeli stuff has nothing in common with the positive boycotts carried out by political radicals in the past, whether it was suffragettes boycotting Britain’s 1911 census or blacks in the American south boycotting buses with segregationist seating.

Rather, the avoidance of Israel and all its ideas and wares has become a weird way of life for some people, where the aim isn’t to achieve tangible political goals but rather an inner sensation of super moral smugness.

Hating Israel is no longer a serious political stance so much as a cultural signifier. It’s one of the key ways through which the chattering classes now advertise their decency, their caring streak, their loathing of “evil” and their pity for “victims”.

And therefore, the more conspicuous they can make their loathing of Israel, the more loudly and colourfully they can declare it, the better. That is why they constantly write letters to newspapers, tell everyone that they studiously avoid Israeli shops, and wear the Yasser Arafat-inspired keffiyeh - because these are all signifiers of moral worth and thus must be made visible to all and sundry.

Hating Israel is now like wearing a red ribbon for AIDS or making a virtue of eating only organic foodstuffs.

Its consequences, however, are far more dire than donning a ribbon. For the end result of all these self-serving anti-Israel antics is that one tiny country is singled out for chattering-class opprobrium and in the process is transformed into a pariah state. These anti-Israel activists claim to be concerned that Israel is becoming an apartheid state, yet they themselves practice cultural apartheid against Israel.

Habima has come in for some flak in Israel, too, because at the Globe’s festival it is planning to perform what some consider to be Shakespeare’s anti-Semitic play, The Merchant of Venice.

Yet that play also contains a profound plea for tolerance that the anti-Israel lobby would do well to heed: “Hath not a Jew eyes? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”

(h/t Ian)

YNet interviews two of the Mavi Marmara survivors

The IDF survivors, that is.

The first to reach the deck was the squad commander, who was immediately hurt and neutralized. A. was the second man down the rope. He is a 23-year-old resident of northern Israel, whose mother also served in the elite unit.

"At first I didn't understand what's happening," he said. "Just as I came down, five or six terrorists carrying crowbars, clubs, chairs and anything else they could fight with jumped at me. I sustained blows to my head and they also tried to choke me. While doing it, they also tried to lift me and throw me down to the lower deck."

"When I realized what was going on, I also realized that I was fighting for my life; it was either I overcome them, or they'll throw me into the sea," he said.

So what did you do?

I fought with my fists and started to push them away. When I came down to the deck, I only held a paintball gun…so in the initial stage I only fought with my hands. This is what we were taught to do when we have no weapons.

But you had a handgun.

It was attached to my calf. I tried to reach it, but this takes time.

What was going through your mind at that time?

You're fighting for your life. The struggle lasted some 30 seconds. They tried to throw me overboard, yet just when I managed to reach my handgun, I was hit with that bullet to the stomach."

Meanwhile, Y. also landed on the deck. "As I was sliding down the rope, I saw a group of people fighting. I had no choice, as I couldn't climb back up. So I kept sliding down and saw four or five terrorists waiting for me there, armed with clubs, metal pipes and chairs. I came down, and they immediate started to beat me up, focusing on my head. I was wearing a military helmet, but they got it off, shattered it and started to pulverize me with blows to the head. While doing it, they started pulling me towards the edge of the deck, in order to throw my overboard."

Seconds after landing on the Marmara's deck, his left arm was completely crushed and remained hanging from his shoulder. Y. managed to pull out his handgun with his other hand and fired at the legs of his assailants.

"At that moment, I spotted one of our soldiers on the other side of the deck, with two terrorists standing above him and beating him up; he was bleeding on the floor. So I fired at the two terrorists and brought them down."

How did you know who's a terrorist and who's an innocent civilian?

"There was no problem identifying them. The terrorists wore orange life vests, protective vests, and gas masks. All of them were equipped with cold arms. This is not what innocent peace activists look like."

By this time, A. also managed to pull out his handgun. "The moment the assailants saw that I was holding a gun and waving it, they got away. I then looked up and saw another terrorist with a handgun aiming at a member of my squad. At that moment I opened fire at him and finished him off. I went back and saw that the terrorists who were on top of me earlier were now fighting my comrades. I opened fire at another one who jeopardized another soldier and took him down."

Remember, the IHH terrorists shot first, as the Eiland report showed. And while that first shot seems to have come from the gun of an soldier who lost it, we have photos of at least one weapon on the ship and we know that shell casings found on the ship did not match any IDF handguns.

The IHH "peace activists" were terrorists, period.