Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Scenes from Indonesian protests

Looks like a real supporter of the peace activists, no?
And I'm sure that he is referring to the peaceful, introspective form of Jihad.

(But I'm sure he was just mistranslating it from the original Farsi.)

Another pro-peace flotilla protester, so Reuters feels compelled to inform us that it is a toy gun.

Obama gets off easy, comparatively.

The only reason his outreach to the Muslim world isn't working must be because of Israel - here is proof!

Nah, nothing anti-semitic about a sign with an ape wearing a black hat and peyos. All Zionists look that way.

And I'm sure that this sign is just an aberration, just one crazy person who hates Jews - it cannot possibly represent the vast majority of peaceful, moderate Muslims of Indonesia. Right?

Riiiiiight.

Received via email.

Anchorman disgusted by pro-Hamas bias on his station

From the Daily Caller:

What you’ re about to read is perfectly true. I came within a butterfly fart of firing this memo off to my boss this morning in a fit of real rage. But my wife, yet again, intervened.

“You’ve been whining like this for ten years. Just go get a new job,” she said.

“Don’t send that memo!”

She’s right.

I agreed not to push the send button, but only if she let me send the memo to The Daily Caller, minus the names. I hate writing anonymously. Readers who’ve criticized me for it are totally justified. One of these days I’ll reveal myself to readers of The Daily Caller, but until that new job comes, or I’m fired, which is increasingly likely, I don’t want to have to pull my kids out of college because of their father’s selfishness. Here’s the memo that I want to send but – under great duress – can’t.

Dear XXXX,

I’m writing for some clarification about how we are supposed to cover the Gaza flotilla story. If we, as a news organization, are supposed to be acting as a public relations arm of Hamas, or Hezbollah, both internationally recognized terrorist organizations, or if we are supposed to be jumping on the bandwagon of 1930’s style anti-Semitism that’s presently sweeping much of the world, then we are doing a fine job. If we are supposed to be acting as a news organization that covers the story objectively, then our coverage is a travesty and an embarrassment.

...In addition, remarkably, her piece made no mention – absolutely none — of the Israeli perspective in this story. For example:

The widely aired (though not here) video that clearly shows an IDF soldier being tossed over a railing, and others being beaten with sticks, was omitted.

The fact that bullet proof vests and night vision goggles were found among the “humanitarian aid” on the ship was omitted.

IDF video of confiscated knives and metal bars that were apparently used as weapons was omitted.

Information that Israeli soldiers were also wounded and injured was omitted.

Moreover, her piece included no background whatsoever on why Israel’s interception (“attack” as we called it ) of the flotilla would likely have passed muster in any court outside the thug-ridden United Nations.

Read the whole thing.

Local news typically doesn't have any experts on international affairs, so the media meme of Israel-as-aggressor becomes the easy narrative to cover stories that go beyond their own back yard. I saw Adam Shapiro on a local Fox station, answering the halfway decent question of whether he believes that Hamas should have the rights to import weapons, by saying "we are against all violence" - but the anchor didn't follow up to force a yes or no answer.

But Free Gaza and the other "humanitarian" groups of the flotilla are very clear that they want to see Gaza/Hamastan treated like a sovereign nation, which necessarily means the freedom for Hamas to import whatever weapons it desires. (Yesterday's interview with the Amnesty International official showed that this was pretty much their position as well. And this applies to the PA, too)

So we have an entire generation of people supposedly concerned about human rights who feel that the only moral thing that must be done is to have Israel just allow unlimited supplies - including weapons - into Gaza.

It might make them uncomfortable, but, hey, they aren't Hamas' targets.

UN Watch - a lonely voice against the world's hypocrites

Speech at the UN delivered by Hillel Neuer of UN Watch, 2 June 2010:

Mr. President, this debate turns on one question: Was the flotilla humanitarian, or not?

To answer this question, let us first examine the objective of the organizers, and then the means they used.

Evidence of the organizer’s objective can be found in the path they chose, and the path they rejected.

Israel, which in the past 18 months has delivered over 1 million tons of aid to Gaza, offered to receive the flotilla’s cargo in the nearby port of Ashdod, and, after inspection, to deliver it to Gaza. The organizers, however, rejected this offer. Because they wanted to create a political provocation; they were looking for a physical confrontation.

Mr. President, is this a humanitarian path?

Further evidence can be found in their state of mind, as demonstrated by their own words.

Before the ships sailed, supporters chanted “Intifada, Intifada,” and “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammed will return.” One of them declared that the aim of the flotilla was either of two “good things… achieving martyrdom or reaching Gaza.”

Mr. President, is this a humanitarian state of mind?

Let us also examine the means they used: metal bars, knives, axes, and even guns.

Mr. President, are these humanitarian means?

No. This operation was organized by an extremist group, the IHH, with extensive and documented ties to terrorist groups. Their objective and means had nothing to do with humanitarianism.

Now, seated around me here are representatives of some of the world’s leading humanitarian organizations, from the International Committee of the Red Cross, the UN Refugee Agency, and the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Let us ask them: Are these the ways of humanitarians?

No, Mr. President, the resolution that is before us today — introduced by such countries as Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Sudan — is an insult to the world’s real humanitarians.

Thank you, Mr. President.

The Love Boat

Yesterday, Binyomin Netanyahu said that the Mavi Marama "was no "Love Boat."

Au contraire, Bibi:

(h/t EBoZ)

MJ Rosenberg's lies at HuffPo

When the Huffington Post publishes an article that seeks to expose "pro-Israel lies," you would think that they wouldn't want the article to be filled with lies itself.

But that's just what happened with MJ Rosenberg's latest post.

Just for starters:

The first thing you need to know about the Gaza flotilla disaster is that the intention of the activists on board the ships was to break the Israeli blockade. Delivering the embargoed goods was incidental.

In other words, the activists were like the civil rights demonstrators who sat down at segregated lunch counters throughout the South and refused to leave until they were served. Their goal was not really to get breakfast. It was to end segregation.

That fact is so obvious that it is hard to believe that the "pro-Israel" lobby is using it as an indictment.

The analogy to civil rights breakfasts is absurd. While it is true that when the activists speak amongst themselves they are very clear that they are not aid organizations nor humanitarian organizations - but rather one that supports terror and "resistance" - they presented themselves to the media as an aid flotilla, with 10,000 tons of humanitarian supplies that Gazans are lacking. These were pretty much all lies, with the exception of the cement (which, incidentally, Israel sent more of to Gaza last week than the entire flotilla was bringing.)

They were using the aid to gain respectability, because accurately calling themselves a political or resistance movement would not play well. If anything, the media's obsession with calling them "humanitarians" and "peace activists" shows how much their lies took hold in the press, quite contrary to his assertion that the media is now way too pro-Israel.

As for the Israeli argument that its soldiers were attacked, that is ridiculous. Israeli commandos were ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters and the government that sent them claims that the resisting passengers attacked them without provocation. This is like a carjacker complaining to the police that the driver bashed him with a crowbar that was under the seat. Neither carjackers nor hijackers should expect their victims to acquiesce peacefully.

Except that, under international law, Israel is perfectly within its legal rights to warn ships that are breaking a blockade. Even in international waters. The civilians on the ship have the legal right to attack the soldiers - but by doing so they are no longer considered civilians, but rather combatants, and the soldiers are allowed to fight back. People like Rosenberg love to throw out statements like these to imply that Israel's actions were obviously illegal, but it is just another lie. (And on the other five ships, the activists actually did keep their status as civilians - and no one was killed. Is Rosenberg saying that they were wrong to do so and they should have fought? That would be interesting.)

Rosenberg also conveniently ignores the role of IHH and its terror ties. I guess he realizes that he has no leg to stand on there, so better to ignore the fact that an organization that is known to have smuggled arms to, and recruited members for, terror groups is one of his heroic blockade-busters.

Hamas has repeatedly offered Israel an indefinite cease-fire in exchange for lifting the blockade. And, on a half dozen occasions, Israel accepted the deal but did not live up to its side of it.

Here he gives a link to an aid organization (a real one), but the link does not prove anything close to his claim. How many people assume that a link, like a footnote, actually proves something without checking it out?

The fact is that Israel did live up to its obligations during the cease fire, and the aid that went to Gaza was in exact inverse proportion to the rocket fire coming from Gaza during that weak truce.

In fact, the 2009 war began after Israel ignored its commitments under the Gaza cease-fire agreement, continued the blockade, and then provoked the resumption of attacks on Sderot through a series of targeted assassinations of Palestinians.

See above. Plus there was no "series of targeted assassinations" - in early November Israel killed a number of terrorists while they were building a tunnel into Israel for the purposes of kidnapping Israelis. Was Israel obligated to wait until someone was kidnapped before acting?

Even after the cease fire lapsed, Israel held off from real retaliation - and it was Hamas, not Israel, that started the Gaza war, with its declaration of Operation Oil Stain and its concurrent rocket barrage three days before Cast Lead.

Rosenberg's attempts to paint a rosy and moderate picture of Hamas is absurd and laughable. Its anti-semitic charter - which wants to see Rosenberg as dead as any Zionist - is still in force.

For a guy who is pretending to expose lies, Rosenberg sure seems to spout a lot of them himself.

A "peace activist" brags he wants to be a "shahid"/martyr

From the IDF YouTube channel:

In footage captured on the Gaza flotilla, a passenger describes how he has attempted in previous convoys to become a martyr and that "with god's luck" he will succeed on this flotilla. While the Gaza flotilla passengers had presented themselves as peace activists who would not act violently towards Israeli forces, this provides further evidence to the contrary.

It also proves that the motivations of people on the previous "humanitarian missions" was anything but humanitarian.

Anti-Israel freaks think they caught Israel lying! Too bad they are idiots.

Mondoweiss points to a breathless article that accuses the IDF of faking photos of the non-peaceful items found aboard the Mavi Marmara.

Their main evidence is that the EXIF information from the photographs indicate pictures taken in 2006, or 2003, not 2010.

The claim is absurd on the face of it - why would the IDF bother to fake pictures of bullet-proof vests or saws or pepper spray, when it would make more sense for them to fake pictures of handguns and stun grenades or more lethal weapons? It is far more likely that the digital cameras used to take the photos never had their date/time set - not that the anti-Zionist folks would ever admit to such a simple possibility.

But if you don't believe that explanation, you can see the IDF video of the exact same items, piled the same way, all on display, at the Ashdod port:

I guess that the IDF read the accusations and rushed to manufacture or obtain the items whose photos were taken years ago, to position them for the fake video shoot yesterday!

(h/t anon for the Mondoweiss link)

Correction on the cargo

I wrote that the aid from the flotilla fit in 28 Israeli trucks, and I estimated that this was less than 1500 tons, a far cry from the 10,000 tons that the flotilla organizers claimed.

Well, I was wrong - and I was right.

It turns out that this was only the first set of shipments. According to a COGAT briefing on Wednesday, there will be a total of 70-80 trucks of aid in the end, if Hamas agrees that Gaza actually needs the aid.

However, a commenter points out that because of the haphazard way that the flotilla aid was packed, each truck is almost certainly holding much less than it normally does when flatbeds use pallets. So instead of 25 tons per truck, it is probably closer to 10.

COGAT itself says that the total amount from the flotilla is about the same as one day's worth of aid from Israel, which would be less than 1500 tons anyway.

Either way, Free Gaza and their friends are once again proven to be liars.

Flotilla Fools' narrative falls apart - legal issues

Reuters asks some international law experts whether Israel acted legally, and on all aspects of the operation, they agree that Israel was on solid legal ground:

CAN ISRAEL IMPOSE A NAVAL BLOCKADE ON GAZA?

Yes it can, according to the law of blockade which was derived from customary international law and codified in the 1909 Declaration of London. It was updated in 1994 in a legally recognized document called the "San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea."

Under some of the key rules, a blockade must be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral states, access to neutral ports cannot be blocked, and an area can only be blockaded which is under enemy control.

"On the basis that Hamas is the ruling entity of Gaza and Israel is in the midst of an armed struggle against that ruling entity, the blockade is legal," said Philip Roche, partner in the shipping disputes and risk management team with law firm Norton Rose.

WHAT ARE INTERNATIONAL WATERS?

Under the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea a coastal state has a "territorial sea" of 12 nautical miles from the coast over which it is sovereign. Ships of other states are allowed "innocent passage" through such waters.

There is a further 12 nautical mile zone called the "contiguous zone" over which a state may take action to protect itself or its laws.

"However, strictly beyond the 12 nautical miles limit the seas are the "high seas" or international waters," Roche said.

The Israeli navy said on Monday the Gaza bound flotilla was intercepted 120 km (75 miles) west of Israel. The Turkish captain of one of the vessels told an Istanbul news conference after returning home from Israeli detention they were 68 miles outside Israeli territorial waters.

Under the law of a blockade, intercepting a vessel could apply globally so long as a ship is bound for a "belligerent" territory, legal experts say.

CAN ISRAEL USE FORCE WHEN INTERCEPTING SHIPS?

Under international law it can use force when boarding a ship.

"If force is disproportionate it would be a violation of the key tenets of the use of force," said Commander James Kraska, professor of international law at the U.S. Naval War College.

Israeli authorities said marines who boarded the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara opened fire in self-defense after activists clubbed and stabbed them and snatched some of their weapons.

Legal experts say proportional force does not mean that guns cannot be used by forces when being attacked with knives.

"But there has got to be a relationship between the threat and response," Kraska said.

The use of force may also have other repercussions.

"While the full facts need to emerge from a credible and transparent investigation, from what is known now, it appears that Israel acted within its legal rights," said J. Peter Pham, a strategic adviser to U.S. and European governments.

OPPONENTS HAVE CALLED ISRAEL'S RAID "PIRACY." WAS IT?

No, as under international law it was considered a state action.

"Whether what Israel did is right or wrong, it is not an act of piracy. Piracy deals with private conduct particularly with a pecuniary or financial interest," Kraska said.

So every single argument by the Free Gaza folks about how illegal Israel's actions were are complete and utter lies.

Like pretty much everything else they say.

(h/t Omri)

Amnesty International official ties himself up in rhetorical knots

There is an amazing interview by Jonathan Dahoah Halevi with Itai Epstein, Director of Amnesty International in Israel.

Amnesty goes under the assumption that Gaza is under Israeli occupation. This makes no sense, because if it is under Israeli occupation, Israel would have the obligation to protect Gazan citizens - even from Hamas. Israel would be responsible for police work, for education, and for all other parts of Gaza's infrastructure. Occupation, by definition, means a physical presence on the ground.

But Amnesty disagrees, and the hoops they have to jump through to maintain a consistent stance with their assertion that Gaza is occupied and their demand that Israel lift the blockade are high indeed. Essentially,

Amnesty is arguing that Israel has no right whatsoever to stop Hamas from acquiring weapons.

Here is part of the interview:

Does Israel have the right to check if there were weapons on the ship?

Had the ship been in Israel’s territorial waters they would have had a right. If the ship were outside Israel’s territorial waters, the answer is no.

What is the reasoning for this claim?

The international law which distinguishes between territorial waters and international waters. Israel, like any other country, has powers within 12 miles of its beaches and 12 additional miles of water adjacent, and beyond these, Israel has no sovereign authority.

Amnesty claims that Israel is still considered an occupying force in Gaza. Does Israel not have the authority to check if weapons which can be put to use by Hamas arrive in Gaza?

Of course we do not back the transferring of weapons to Hamas, which is a violent regime and a violent political group which has committed war crimes. Having said that, I think the issue here is not the transferring of weapons but rather the siege Israel imposes on Gaza,...

The operation was conducted on ships making their way to Gaza. I am asking a question of principle, whether Israel, which you claim is still an occupying force in Gaza, has the authority to check if there are weapons on the ship?

The answer in principle is unrelated to the occupation of Gaza. Gaza is under siege and an Israeli occupation, there is no question about it. Even by Israel’s announcement that it is imposing a siege on Gaza. The question of the search on the ships is related to a different legal question, and that is the question of sovereign authority in territorial waters versus the authority in international waters.

This is a question of principle, since Israel is inspecting for weapons through the land border crossings.

Israel does not check for the possibility of weapons entering through land border crossings. Israel transfers, what little it transfers, on its own.

There is international assistance which arrives and there is also import coming in through the Ashdod Port with weapons and ammunition, and Israel inspects it. The principle question is simple: According to Amnesty’s perception, does Israel even have the authority to check ships headed to Gaza near Gaza’s water and see if they contain weapons?

The answer is very simple. The siege is illegal. All the actions performed as part of the siege are illegal.

With your permission, I’m going back to the question because there is a question of principle regarding the raiding of a ship.

I don’t think that’s a principle question at all. I think the principle question is whether it is permitted to impose a siege on Gaza.

Does Israel have the authority to inspect a ship at a distance of 12 miles from the Gaza shore to see whether there are weapons on it?

It has the authority to do it within Israel’s territorial waters.

Also in Gaza’s waters?

Gaza doesn’t have waters, Gaza is an occupied territory under Israeli rule, it has no territorial waters because it doesn’t have sovereign authority.

What is required of Israel to stop it from being an occupying force under Amnesty’s definition?

That there will be another sovereign power and that the border crossings to Gaza not be under Israeli control. That’s the meaning of occupation, there’s no other sovereign power there, there’s no control over the border crossings for free movement of people and goods and that’s why Gaza is under occupation.

Can Israel not ever close the border crossings to Gaza?

Assuming that another sovereign power will be there, there can be international border crossings. That’s not the situation as of today.

Hamas is defined as a sovereign power by the Goldstone committee which treated it as “the authority of Gaza” and is internationally recognized by a large number of countries.

It receives recognition as a de facto regime. The question of the Israeli occupation is not related to Hamas. It’s connected with Israel’s actions.

So what actions must Israel take? You say that the occupation ends if Israel opens the crossings, so if the occupation ends, Israel needs to close the borders since Gaza is defined as an enemy state. There’s a logical contradiction here.

I don’t understand where the contradiction is.
...

What are all the components to end the occupation? Amnesty does not present a plan in which Israel stops the occupation. It says that Israel needs to stop the occupation and deepen the occupation by opening the borders. I don’t comprehend that.

Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts.

It’s not conflict solving. It’s ending the occupation. Amnesty says that Gaza is under occupation. According to Amnesty, what actions must Israel take in order to stop the occupation?

One of the things which need to be done is to allow the passage of people and goods through the air, the sea and land. That’s one component. There are other components related to agreements of the international community since Amnesty International does not deal with solving conflicts. It only addresses the question of whether the situation is adequate in relation to international humanitarian law and international standards. It doesn’t deal with solving the conflict, not here or anywhere else.
...
Amnesty claims that Israel is an occupying country and is responsible for the welfare of Gaza’s residents. According to this definition, does Israel need to act against the Hamas government in order to care for the welfare and safety of Gaza’s residents?

The State of Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens. It has an obligation to distinguish between military targets and civil targets. ...

The question is whether Israel is committed, being an occupying force as Amnesty defines, to be concerned for the welfare of Gaza’s residents and therefore act against the Hamas government and the Palestinian terrorist organizations that control Gaza, in order to protect the Palestinian population?

Israel has a duty to protect its citizens.

Amnesty’s messages said that Israel should take care to protect the people of Gaza. Is the issue of the security of the people of Gaza not an authority which Israel has?

Israel’s duty is to protect its citizens and ensure that the people of Gaza enjoy all the social and economic rights recognized in international law and in the Geneva convention.

So if Hamas is violating the rights of the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip to live, as defined in international law, does Israel not have the authority to act against the Hamas government to care for the safety of the people of Gaza?

The problem is first and foremost the rights of the people of Gaza which Israel violates by the illegal siege.

He is being willfully obtuse. The Amnesty official refuses to accept that his interpretation of international law leads to absurd and contradictory (not to mention inhumane) results. When forced to look at the absurdity, he retreats into repeating irrelevant mantras. Israel must open its borders to end the occupation and then it can close them. He says (not quoted here) that Israel's closed border with Lebanon is different because it has border with other countries - pretending that Gaza does not have a border with Egypt.

It is instructive to see that some human rights workers cannot see beyond their own narrow view of human rights and insist on countries adhering to impossible and suicidal policies - because they cannot conceive that their viewpoints are severely flawed at the outset. The irony, of course, is that the human rights of Israelis would be severely compromised by listening to idiots like this guy - and then they would presumably write a couple of highly critical reports condemning the Iranian satellite of Hamastan for continuing to shoot ballistic missiles with chemical weapons towards Tel Aviv. Tsk, tsk.

Free Gaza's nutcase Greta Berlin on CNN-I soon

CNN International has a feature called Connect the World where people can post questions to be answered by newsmakers.

Tonight (or this afternoon, for the US) Greta Berlin will be on the show, along with Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev.

I asked two questions:

Does the Free Gaza movement fully support the IHH, your Turkish partners who used the iron bars, chains and stun grenades and which has been linked to arms smuggling and support for violent jihadist movements? If not, are you willing to make a statement dissociating Free Gaza from the IHH and their activities?

You wrote in an email to the Free Gaza mailing list yesterday that Israel informed the US and UK that the flotilla had nuclear weapons. Do you stand by that statement?

Someone let me know if my questions are asked.

She is truly crazy, and hopefully Regev can wipe the floor with her.The show will be broadcast at 4 PM New York time, 2100 London time.)

Another anecdote from the Daniel Pipes blog from when Pipes spoke at UCLA a few years ago and Berlin screamed at him during his talk....

I was looking for a seat at the UCLA Daniel Pipes event, and lo and behold, the only seats available were next to Greta Berlin, her buddy Karen Palley and another WIB overaged activist. When I tried to get into the row, Ms. Greta blocked the aisle with her legs so I could not get through (we have had several run in's at protests et al). I asked her politely to please move her legs so I could sit down. She refused. I finally had to tell her this was a public space and I had the right to sit down and would not be intimidated by her. I also told her that I hated sitting next to her, as she felt about sitting next to me. She acted like a child, instead of the 65 plus year old bitch that she is. I knew they had something up and when their T shirts had written on the front "LI" and "ES" on the back. "Lies, get it??? I did not until they disrupted the speakers and were rude and juvenile. They are a bunch of old women .... Sorry, but that is a fact.

Latest IDF video - IHH preparing to fight

Showing the peaceful IHH preparations to meet the IDF - preparing their iron rods, slingshots, broken glass bottles....

I love that the best video showing that the "peace protestors" weren't peaceful comes from the protestors' own cameras!

Some Free Gaza freakazoids have even moved away from their meme of non-violent protest, which they lost badly, now to "justified violence." Yvonne Ridley, who had gone on Free Gaza trips in the past, invokes an anti-piracy convention that has nothing to do with this situation and says (on an Iranian site)

Under international maritime law you are legally entitled to resist unlawful capture, abduction and detention.

What those on board the Freedom Flotilla did was perfectly legal. I believe they acted with great courage in the face of heavily armed IDF commandos, while others might have thought their actions reckless.

So much for non-violent resistance - that argument has gone out the window.

Of course, the argument is circular - she defines the Israeli actions as "unlawful" initially and then uses the Rome Convention, which says that unlawful actions are illegal, to prove that it was unlawful!

But the important part is that the Free Gaza folks are being forced to abandon their lies earlier than they had in previous adventures because of a much better factual response by Israel.

Hamas refusing aid from flotilla (UPDATED)

The IDF just tweeted, and confirmed by email, that Haams has refused the shipments of flotilla aid through the Kerem Shalom crossing into Gaza.

The IDF spokesperson added, "Why? You'll have to ask [Hamas.]"

Nothing on the Al Qassam site about this yet.

I guess that Hamas wanted something more explosive than toys and paper.

UPDATE: From Xinhua:

Hamas authorities on Tuesday refused to receive aid and supplies to the Gaza Strip through Israel, stressing that Israel must first free pro-Palestinian campaigners who were onboard an aid flotilla.

Israel can send aid that Gaza flotilla had carried to the coastal enclave "only if the shipments are complete and when Israel release all activists who were onboard the ships, Ziad Al- Zaza, Hamas' Minister of Economy, told Xinhua.

"The priority is to release the detained activists," Al-Zaza added.

On Monday, the Israeli navy stopped five of the vessels that were en route to Gaza to defy a three-year-old Israeli blockade, killing nine international activists and forcing the ships that carried 10,000 tons of aid into its sea ports.

Today, Israel allowed part of the aid, which originally included construction materials and medical supplies, to Gaza through one of its land crossing points, but Hamas refused to let that shipment in, witnesses told Xinhua.

Hamas obviously doesn't think much of the tons of aid that the world sent to it. Maybe Israel should donate it instead to poor Arabs in Egypt or the Sudan? It would be fun to hear the "human rights' activists object to that....

Congratulations! The siege is over!

Egypt has opened the Rafah crossing "indefinitely."

Since yesterday, the Egyptian Red Crescent sent through 7000 blankets, 107 tents, 13 generators (through which 4 yesterday and 9 today), 250 pillows, 20 Scouts operations room, 70 cartons of clothes, 20 cartons of shoes, 67 gallons of honey, and 5 ambulances. Sounds like about two truckfuls of goods.

So shouldn't the activists who have agitated for the siege to be lifted be ecstatic? Shouldn't the Rachel Corrie ship, now headed for Gaza to be intercepted by Israel, change course to Egypt so its goods could be transferred to Gazans as quickly as possible? Shouldn't we be seeing Free Gaza and other groups quickly organize convoys to send all those much-needed supplies to poor Gazans?

A day after I first asked that question, we are still hearing nothing from these groups that supposedly care so deeply about Gazans so as to risk their lives for them. Egypt's opening of the border is not huge news being greeted by celebration, but rather it is being ignored by the Western "humanitarians."

Egypt's opening of the border is not likely to last, either, which makes the entire lack of Western humanitarian effort to take advantage of the opening even more incongruous.

Cement is not being allowed through Rafah, however.

Palestine Today adds that "it is unlikely that Egypt will open the crossing permanently and for all commodities because they are afraid that this will lead to the flouting by Israel of any responsibility for the sector."

But wouldn't the activists be much happier if Egypt would take responsibility for their fellow Arab brethren and allow them to bring in all the supplies they want? Shouldn't they be demanding Egypt build a much larger terminal in Rafah to handle all the tons of aid they plan to send to Gaza?

The lack of interest by the activists in shipping goods through Egypt seems to indicate that concern for Gazans is not uppermost in their minds. They seem to have an entirely different agenda, one that the Western media is very reluctant to highlight.