Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 04, 2010

Reporters need to ask follow-up questions of "eyewitnesses"

"We were witnesses to premeditated murders," said historian Mattias Gardell, who was on the Mavi Marmar.

From DN.se (translated):

The Israelis committed premeditated murder. Two people were killed by shots in the forehead, one was shot in the back of the head and chest, said Gardell.

He did not see the killings with his own eyes. His information is based instead on what he asked others in prison.

Reporters are treating these "witnesses" with kid gloves. From the excellent site Just Journalism:

The most widely quoted British activist, who was on board the Mavi Marmara, is Sarah Colborne, director of campaigns at the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. She has been quoted in four of today’s broadsheets, the BBC News website and also featured on last night’s Channel 4 News.

She was generally presented as horrified and dismayed over the Israeli army’s deployment of lethal force. The Times reported her as saying, ‘Everyone’s just in shock. It was a massacre that took place there.’ The BBC’s Peter Jackson’s website article, ‘UK Gaza activist Sarah Colborne - ship raid 'surreal'’ described Colborne’s account as one of ‘stunned surprise’ and quoted her at her press conference, insisting: ‘It felt surreal, I couldn't quite believe they were doing what they were doing - none of us anticipated it’....

The only journalist to challenge the PSC director’s claims that she was surprised that the Israelis boarded the boat and to press her on who initiated the violence was BBC Today programme anchor Sarah Montague. The journalist repeatedly tried to glean from Colborne, who had started the violence and what she had actually seen. In the following exchange, Colborne revealingly avoids the BBC journalist’s question about whether or not the passengers attacked the soldiers and implies that she did not actually see Israeli commandos open fire:

Sarah Montague:   Are you saying that Israeli soldiers who boarded that ship opened fire and there was no provocation for it?

Sarah Colborne:   That’s what I am saying, yes.

SM:   You saw that. You saw them fire when there was no attack on them.

SC:   I saw them, well, I saw them, what I saw was them coming down from a helicopter onto the roof, I saw them trying to board the boat via dinghies.

SM:   Were they attacked by those on board?

SC:   They – the people on board, as you can see, were trying to stop…

SM:   Hitting them with metal bars.

SC:   Well, we need to see the entire footage. I believe to give a perspective on what was happening. They were shooting, they were shooting civilians, they were using gas bombs on the ship. The truth is we were in international waters, Israel committed a piracy offence.

Sarah Montague also challenged Colborne’s contention she had ‘heard no warnings whatsoever’ that the Israelis were going to raid the ship, saying, ‘How can you not have known or how can those on board the ship… because we know from what the Israeli side is saying that there were plenty of warnings?

The BBC journalist finally broached the subject of the professed desire for martyrdom on the part of some of the participants who had died:

‘Let me, let me put something to you. The Turkish newspapers yesterday quoted family members of two of the dead men as saying that they had wanted to be martyrs.’

Sarah Colborne, once again, flatly denied being aware of any such aspirations of her co-travellers:

‘Well, I – I have no idea. I didn’t speak to anyone who wanted to be a martyr.’

The fact that Israel got the footage out on YouTube so quickly has allowed journalists to ask real questions - when they have a desire to find out the truth, that is.

Arab League meets over flotilla; can't agree on what to do.

An emergency meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo over a response to the flotilla incident resulted in much disagreement over what actions to take, and the wording of the final statement.

The Egyptians were strongly opposed to the wording "break the siege" because it could expose their own citizens to infiltration from Gaza. Qatar threatened Egypt back, and Egypt noted its objections but kept the language.

In the end, the watered down statement did not call on Arab governments to do anything about the blockade - but rather to ask the UN Security Council to pressure Israel.

This was regarded as a major embarrassment in the Arab world.

Apparently, the group also drafted a letter to President Obama but decided unanimously not to publish it.

Going commando

Richard Goldstone was asked how Israel could fight terror without endangering civilians. His answer was "You know, commando actions could have been taken."

Judging from world hysteria over a perfectly legal Israeli commando action meant to support a perfectly legal blockade, it appears that Goldstone is a radical intransigent hard-line Likudnik for even giving a hint that Israel has the right to defend itself in any way, shape or form.

How dare he?

(h/t Isy)

UK government groveling to Islamists

From Douglas Murray at The Telegraph (UK):

I have just been forwarded an email from the UK government which suggests that the new administration does not merely feel blackmailed by Islamists but is also actively trying to placate them....

There is only one reason why this email was sent out: the British government is attempting to placate Muslim pressure groups in the UK by saying, “Look at us, you’re not going to catch us being soft on Israel, we’re as furious and condemning as you are.”

Read the whole thing.
(h/t Guest)

UN actually expresses "concern" over Hamas actions!

Over the past two years, Hamas has routinely raided, closed, arrested the leaders of and taken over news media, political organizations, medical groups, dental unions, schools, teachers' unions, labor unions, and charities.

Throughout all these outrages, the UN has been mostly silent, saving its condemnations for Israel.

However, early this week Hamas raided six different NGOs - and the UN finally, after years, took notice:

A senior United Nations official in the Middle East today expressed deep concern at reports that Hamas has broken into the offices of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Gaza Strip this week, confiscated materials and equipment, and forced the offices to shut down.
Robert Serry, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, said in a statement issued in Jerusalem that reports indicated Hamas had broken into NGO offices in both Gaza City and Rafah.

“This targeting of NGOs, including UN partner organizations, is unacceptable, violating accepted norms of a free society and harming the Palestinian people,” he said.

“The de facto authorities must cease such repressive steps and allow the re-opening of these civil society institutions without delay.”

Notice that the UN representatives in Gaza didn't make this statement - because they are simply too terrified to say anything against Hamas.

Of course, this is not a condemnation - just an expression of "deep concern." Too little, and a couple of years too late. But since the news had reached the Western media, the UN couldn't ignore it completely, like they did for all the previous Hamas outrages - even when they were against the UN itself.

What happened on the ship: Extracting truth from half-truths

It takes a lot of time to extract the truth of exactly what happened aboard the Mavi Marmara, but when you get lots of testimonies that contradict each other from both sides, seeing what is in common can shed light.

For example, in the article I quoted previously from the Australian journalist Paul McGeough:

There were conflicting accounts of the first commando landing – some activists said he was injured and was being carried inside the ship for treatment by the flotilla doctors.

From Al Jazeera:
The organisers [of the flotilla] swapped the four Israelis kidnapped, or caught, by the people on the ship, and because they were beaten up, because it's kind of resistance from our side, we swapped the Israeli soldiers to [get] to treat our injured.

From Ha'aretz: :

During Israel's takeover of a Turkish ship in the Gaza-bound aid flotilla this week, some passengers tried to take captive three commandos who lost consciousness as a result of the activists' blows, according to early findings of a navy investigation. The three were dragged into one of the passenger halls below deck and were held there for several minutes.

After dozens of other commandos began searching the ship, the Mavi Marmara, the three soldiers regained consciousness and managed to join their comrades.

So, beyond merciless beatings, the Turks tried to kidnap the soldiers - and later claimed that they were simply treating their injuries!

From McGeough:

Matthias Gardel, a leader of the Swedish Palestinian support group, confirmed the soldiers had been beaten, but insisted those involved were unarmed and in keeping with the ship's non-violent charter, the soldiers' weapons were thrown overboard.

From Ha'aretz:

The soldiers reported that the activists had fired on them during the confrontation and that at least two commandos suffered gunshot wounds. After the incident, 9mm bullet casings were found - a kind not used by the naval commandos.

The Israel Defense Forces says that during the operation a number of pistols and an M-4 rifle were taken from soldiers, but they believe that the Turkish activists had other weapons. The captain of the ship told the naval commando chief that the guns were thrown overboard before the ship was completely taken over.

Which explains the lack of weapons found, even though there were live video and audio reports from the soldiers as they heard and saw the gunshots.

Free Gaza claims that the ship raised a white flag almost immediately.

From Al Jazeera:

It was 14 ships which approached us, nearly at 4.30 in the morning. Fourteen ships that I could count and one helicopter....It ended at six, when a voice from the microphone said the ship was controlled by the Israelis, 'please enter the rooms'.

So it took some ninety minutes of fighting before the Marmara surrendered.

(h/t Alexander)

They prayed before they lynched

The Sydney Morning Herald has a reporter's account of the commando operation that is so unbelievably biased as to be laughable. Written by Paul McGeough, it is titled "Prayers, tear gas and terror."

The Israeli attack was timed for dawn prayers – when a good number of the men aboard the Mavi Marmara were praying on the aft deck of the big Turkish passenger ferry, as it motored steadily through international waters in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

The call to prayer could be heard across the water – haunting chords made tinny by the ship's PA system, yet haunting enough amid tension sparked several hours earlier when the six ships' captains in the Free Gaza Flotilla rejected a demand radioed by the Israeli navy – change course away from the Gaza Strip or be confronted with lethal force.

Don't you love the imagery of innocent Muslims at prayer being surprised by stealthy evil Zionist killers? The fact that we have video of them waiting for the Israelis, with clubs and knives and slingshots and broken bottles in hand, is not mentioned. No, all night they were praying. (By the way, the Muslim times for prayer are almost literally all day and night - Isha'a is dusk until dawn, Fajr from dawn to sunrise.)

We have heard the warnings given by the Israelis and they never warned that they would use "lethal force." This is simply a lie.

They hunted like hyenas – moving up and ahead on the flanks; pushing in, then peeling away; and finally, lagging before lunging. But as they came alongside the Mavi Marmara, the dozen or so helmeted commandos in each assault craft copped the full force of the ferry's fire hoses and a shower of whatever its passengers found on deck or could break from the ship's fittings.

Suddenly sound bombs and tear gas were exploding on the main aft deck, where prayers were held five times a day.

See - it was a holy spot! Just like the Jews took away the Al Aqsa Mosque, now they took away the holy Mavi Marmara!

[A]ctivists on the upper decks rushed to the top level of the ship – grabbing the commandos even before they landed, disarming them; beating them until, according to some who were present, leaders demanded the Israelis not be harmed; but in one case, one of the Israelis was hurled from one deck of the ship to the next.

Wait - it gets better:

There were conflicting accounts of the first commando landing – some activists said he was injured and was being carried inside the ship for treatment by the flotilla doctors. However, a Serbian cameraman, Srojan Stojiljkovic, said some of the activists had armed themselves with lengths of chain and metal posts that had served as cordons around the ship's lifeboats.

"Some of the people caught the first commando before he touched the deck – a few started to hit him, but a lot of people moved in to shelter him with their bodies," the cameraman said. "Another soldier with a bleeding nose was brought in ... a few people threw punches, but not as many as I would have expected."

The brutal and merciless beatings caught from at least three different camera angles, including the cameras on the Mavi Marava itself, are ignored by this intrepid reporter who so loves Muslim prayer as to invoke it multiple times in the story. Instead, he takes utterly inconsistent and conflicting reports - which any decent reporter would question based on the video evidence - and takes them at face value.

It is not believable that McGeough had not seen the videos by now that show nothing at all corroborating his fanciful tale of caring Turkish aid workers nursing injured Israeli soldiers to health.

Another of the dead was said to be an Indonesian cameraman, Sura Fachrizaz, shot in the chest. Also among the dead was a Malaysian doctor who, activists said, was shot while treating the wounded.

Funny - the news today said that all of the dead were from Turkey (the one American citizen was from Turkey as well.) The reporter is again reporting rumors without checking the facts - just as he repeats the discredited flotilla lie that

Four of the ships carried 10,000 tonnes of emergency supplies for Gaza

...not quite true, closer to 1000 tons of useless supplies that Hamas has spurned.

But his characterization of the violent Hamas coup that killed hundreds of Gazans deserves perhaps the most derision of all:

Hamas retained control of Gaza in the face of an Israeli- and US-backed bid to oust the Islamist movement from power.

McGeough is not a reporter, he is an advocate. And - no surprise - his girlfriend is Palestinian Arab.

(h/t jk)

"We Con the World" (Latma TV)

h/t Bubbe

Yemen does a blockade. People die. World yawns.

When Arabs blockade, they really do it right. No food, water, medicine, or press - so no criticism, either. And it only takes them three weeks to start starving people!

From The Examiner, May 30:

As Yemen’s blockade on southern Yemen enters its third week, stocks of food, medicine and oil have dwindled to dangerous levels. Prices have skyrocketed and already malnourished children bear the brunt of the military action.

The blockade began 17 days ago when the Western Armored Division established new checkpoints on roads and at city entrances preventing the flow of persons and commerce including food, medicine, oil and water. The blockade has cut off Radfan, Yafea, al Dhala, al Melah, al Habeelan, al Shaib, Gahaf, Lazarik, and parts of Shabwah.

The main road between Aden and al Dahlie is closed. Al Habaleen, Lahj was indiscriminately shelled three days ago after two soldiers were killed in an ambush. Another ambush in al Melah killed one soldier, and authorities have accused renegade elements of the southern independence movement with the attacks.

Nearly one thousand have fled Radfan, al Habaleen and al Bilah seeking safety. Like the 250,000 internally displaced by the Sa’ada War, these are mostly women and children. On May 24, a pregnant woman en route to a hospital in Aden was stopped at a military checkpoint and later died in childbirth.

Reports indicate a heavy military mobilization including tanks and armored personnel carriers. As during the Saada war, a total media blackout is in place, often accomplished by the arrest of southern journalists. An American journalist was expelled from Yemen last week after visiting Yafee, a center of southern resistance.

Yemen’s conduct of the Saada war generated 250,000 internal refugees with arbitrary aerial bombing of civilian areas and a strict blockade of food, medicine and international aid.

Assuming this is true, then the world is ignoring a real, illegal blockade (actually, two of them - one was last year) - blockades that do not let anything through and are designed to literally starve out the population.

But Arabs killed and starved by other Arabs is no big deal. No protests or flotillas against Yemen - because the protesters know that they would be killed on the spot, without any media attention.

If the world doesn't know about it, then how bad could it be?

Of course, the Yemenis vociferously protested Israel's blockade. While people in southern Yemen would gladly trade places with any Gazan.

Slightly good news from the US at the UN

An interesting paragraph in a good story by Daniel Henninger in today's Wall Street Journal:

To its credit, the U.S. delegation on duty at the U.N. Monday managed to dilute the language that a somewhat unhinged Turkey demanded from the Security Council. (Amusingly, what the Turks called the U.S.'s "delays" caused the negotiations to slip past midnight into Tuesday morning when, like Cinderella's pumpkin, Lebanon's presidency of the Security Council expired and passed to less invested Mexico.)

Even though there has been some very good criticism against the US ineffectually joining the UNHRC, this sounds like a smart move on the US' part at the UN.

San Remo, again (updated)

Sshender in the comments quotes a response to the many articles that show that Israel's actions were legal (no link, sorry.) However, it does not contradict what Israel did in the least:

39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives.

41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document.

See Section II Methods of Warfare section.

42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which:
(a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or
(b) are indiscriminate, in that:
(i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or
(ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document.

Israel did this. This was the legal enforcing of a blockade, with warning given. Part of that enforcement is the allowance for the blockading party to board and inspect the vessel - and even to tow it to port to inspect it. This is quite clear.

When people start attacking the soldiers legally inspecting the vessel, they lose their status as civilians and turn into combatants. At this point the commandoes must adhere to the laws of combat - mainly distinction and proportionality.

SECTION II : PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK

46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
(a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack;
(b) in the light of the information available to them, those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack shall do everything feasible to ensure that attacks are limited to military objectives;
(c) they shall furthermore take all feasible precautions in the choice of methods and means in order to avoid or minimize collateral casualties or damage; and
(d) an attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which world be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole; an attack shall be cancelled or suspended as soon as it becomes apparent that the collateral casualties or damage would be excessive.

This was all done.

SECTION III : ENEMY VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT EXEMPT FROM ATTACK
Classes of vessels exempt from attack
47. The following classes of enemy vessels are exempt from attack:
(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;

The flotilla organizers themselves admit that their primary goal was not humanitarian but political. Their supplies were clearly not indispensable, as we have seen. No one has starved in Gaza.

(UPDATE): More importantly, the person quoting paragraph 47 ignored paragraph 48 which explicitly excludes 47 even if the aid was legitimate: (h/t anarchofascist)

Conditions of exemption

48. Vessels listed in paragraph 47 are exempt from attack only if they:

(a) are innocently employed in their normal role;

(b) submit to identification and inspection when required; and

(c) do not intentionally hamper the movement of combatants and obey orders to stop or move out of the way when required.

How much more explicit could San Remo be that Israel was allowed to stop and inspect the ship - and that the "peace activists" had zero right to resist?

SECTION V : NEUTRAL MERCHANT VESSELS AND CIVIL AIRCRAFT
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

This is pretty clear!

69. The mere fact that a neutral merchant vessel is armed provides no grounds for attacking it.
Agreed - it was that they were breaking a legal blockade.

SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE
Blockade

Let's quote the entire relevant blockade section, not just a part of it. The quoted text was very misleading, especially the end of paragraph 103. I am italicizing the quoted part by Israel's detractors so you can see their deception:

Section II : Methods of warfare

Blockade

93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States.

94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline.

95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact.

96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements.

97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document.

98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked.

100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States.

102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited 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.

103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:

(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and

(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

This is the essential section that describes Israel's rights to search and stop the flotilla. The part that the critic left out undercuts his case completely, even if you accept the untenable position that this was an aid flotilla and that the aid was essential - both clearly not true.

Israelis know their stuff in international law and conflicts (as sshender noted earlier) . The IDF does not make a move without a team of lawyers approving it ahead of time. In this case, just reading the San Remo doc shows that Israel was perfectly within its legal rights.

Time to breathe, open thread

I've blogged a lot over the past few days - 57 posts since Monday, in fact.

And I've gotten a lot of hits, too - 26,000 or so since Monday morning. In fact, my total number of page views has passed 1.5 million today.

Not to mention that the YouTube video of the IDF officer being stabbed has passed 150,000 views. (YouTube even asked me if I want to put ads on it. I politely declined.)

The post where I translated the Danish reporter's article looking for Gaza's "humanitarian crisis" (h/t Suzanne) has been getting more and more readers, establishing itself as a bona-fide meme as it gets spread to lots of web pages and articles. The "Daniel in the lion's den" video is close behind.

Memeorandum, a site that follows major news stories by how they are followed by blogs, has linked to my posts at least a half-dozen times over the past two days.

About a hundred new people follow me on Twitter and a couple of dozen have joined the blog, to take advantage of incredible benefits that I still cannot quite articulate.

And my total earnings from my feeble attempts to monetize the blog without intruding on the blog experience is still stuck at 62 cents.

If you want to spread my posts further, please place the ones you like on Reddit or one of the other popular bookmark sites. Occasionally, links from there catch on fire and get a ton of views. You can also feel free to link back to my posts in the comment threads of popular blogs and newspapers, which gets an entirely new audience exposed to what I would modestly characterize as a more truthful point of view than they are exposed to from the mainstream media.

But throughout all the craziness, I haven't put up any of the all-important open threads.

I intend to make up for that oversight right..........NOW.

Don't forget to read my tweets

I come across a number of items that I can't blog fully at the time I see them, but I often tweet them. Keep up to date by reading my tweets on the right sidebar, or using a Twitter client, or simply going to my Twitter page.

(I am not big on having Twitter conversations, so don't bother to ask me questions on Twitter. But by all means re-tweet items that you find interesting. I'm still seeing re-tweets from things I posted two days ago.)

Bibi's speech (updated with video)

As Barry Rubin writes, "It is so full of common sense and clear statements that the entire text should be read."

Once again, Israel faces hypocrisy and a biased rush to judgment. I’m afraid this isn’t the first time.

Last year, Israel acted to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets into Israel’s towns and cities. Hamas was firing on our civilians while hiding behind civilians. And Israel went to unprecedented lengths to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties. Yet it was Israel, and not Hamas, that was accused by the UN of war crimes.

Now regrettably, the same thing appears to be happening now.

But here are the facts. Hamas is smuggling thousands of Iranian rockets, missiles and other weaponry – smuggling it into Gaza in order to fire on Israel’s cities. These missiles can reach Ashdod and Beer Sheva – these are major Israeli cities. And I regret to say that some of them can reach now Tel Aviv, and very soon, the outskirts of Jerusalem. From the information we have, the planned shipments include weapons that can reach farther, even farther and deeper into Israel.

Under international law, and under common sense and common decency, Israel has every right to interdict this weaponry and to inspect the ships that might be transporting them.

This is not a theoretical challenge or a theoretical threat. We have already interdicted vessels bound for Hezbollah, and for Hamas from Iran, containing hundreds of tons of weapons. In one ship, the Francop, we found hundreds of tons of war materiel and weapons destined for Hezbollah. In another celebrated case, the Karine A, dozens of tons of weapons were destined for Hamas by Iran via a shipment to Gaza. Israel simply cannot permit the free flow of weapons and war materials to Hamas from the sea.

I will go further than that. Israel cannot permit Iran to establish a Mediterranean port a few dozen kilometers from Tel Aviv and from Jerusalem. And I would go beyond that too. I say to the responsible leaders of all the nations: The international community cannot afford an Iranian port in the Mediterranean. Fifteen years ago I cautioned about an Iranian development that has come to pass – people now recognize that danger. Today I warn of this impending willingness to enable Iran to establish a naval port right next to Israel, right next to Europe. The same countries that are criticizing us today should know that they will be targeted tomorrow.

For this and for many other reasons, we have a right to inspect cargo heading into Gaza.

And here’s our policy. It's very simple: Humanitarian and other goods can go in and weapons and war materiel cannot.

And we do let civilian goods into Gaza. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Each week, an average of ten thousand tons of goods enter Gaza. There's no shortage of food. There's no shortage of medicine. There's no shortage of other goods.On this occasion too, we made several offers – offers to deliver the goods on board the flotilla to Gaza after a security inspection. Egypt made similar offers. And these offers were rejected time and again.

So our naval personnel had no choice but to board these vessels. Now, on five of the vessels, our seamen were not met by any serious violence and as a result, there were no serious injuries aboard those ships. But on the largest ship, something very different happened.

Our naval personnel, just as they landed on the ship – you can see this in the videos – the first soldier – they were met with a vicious mob. They were stabbed, they were clubbed, they were fired upon. I talked to some of these soldiers. One was shot in the stomach, one was shot in the knee. They were going to be killed and they had to act in self-defense.

It is very clear to us that the attackers had prepared their violent action in advance. They were members of an extremist group that has supported international terrorist organizations and today support the terrorist organization called Hamas. They brought with them in advance knives, steel rods, other weapons. They chanted battle cries against the Jews. You can hear this on the tapes that have been released.

This was not a love boat. This was a hate boat. These weren't pacifists. These weren't peace activists. These were violent supporters of terrorism.

I think that the evidence that the lives of the Israeli seamen were in danger is crystal clear. If you're a fair-minded observer and you look at those videos, you know this simple truth. But I regret to say that for many in the international community, no evidence is needed. Israel is guilty until proven guilty.

Once again, Israel is told that it has a right to defend itself but is condemned every time it exercises that right. Now you know that a right that you cannot exercise is meaningless. And you know that the way we exercise it – under these conditions of duress, under the rocketing of our cities, under the impending killing of our soldiers – you know that we exercise it in a way that is commensurate with any international standard. I have spoken to leading leaders of the world, and I say the same thing today to the international community: What would you do? How would you stop thousands of rockets that are destined to attack your cities, your civilians, your children? How would your soldiers behave under similar circumstances? I think in your hearts, you all know the truth.

Israel regrets the loss of life. But we will never apologize for defending ourselves. Israel has every right to prevent deadly weapons from entering into hostile territory. And Israeli soldiers have every right to defend their lives and their country.

This may sound like an impossible plea, or an impossible request, or an impossible demand, but I make it anyway: Israel should not be held to a double standard. The Jewish state has a right to defend itself just like any other state.

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?