Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, June 06, 2010

The taking of hostages is illegal under international law

There have been multiple accounts by now of how the people on the Mavi Marmara ship took the first Israeli commandoes hostage, after wounding them.

For example, this description in Reuters:

Andre Abu Khalil, a Lebanese cameraman for Al Jazeera TV, gave an account that backed some of what both sides have said.

In his telling, activists initially wounded and captured four Israelis from a first wave that boarded the ship. A second wave of troops tried to storm the ship after the four were taken below decks.
...

One activist used a loudhailer to tell the Israelis the four captive soldiers were well and would be released if they provided medical help for the wounded activists. With an Israeli Arab lawmaker acting as mediator, the Israelis agreed. Wounded were brought to the deck and were airlifted off the ship.

The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages starts off this way:

ARTICLE 1

Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the "hostage") in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages ("hostage-taking") within the meaning of this Convention.

Any person who:
attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or
participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.

In other words, the "humanitarian activists" performed a textbook definition of hostage taking. Which means that these "humanitarians" violated humanitarian international law by taking the IDF soldiers hostage.

It doesn't matter if it was only for a relatively short time. It doesn't matter that the hostages were soldiers or that the hostage takers were nominally civilians (although I am fairly certain that by acting violently against the soldiers legally enforcing a blockade, and by taking them hostage, they forfeited their status as civilians and became official combatants, waiving their rights as civilians under international law.) All that is irrelevant to the definition here: this was a case of hostage taking.

This treaty was acceded to (accepted as law) by Turkey in 1989.

Not only that, but hostage taking is a form of terrorism.

This Convention is considered by the UN to be one of the "legal instruments and additional amendments dealing with terrorism." Moreover, it is referenced in the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

This means that whoever was involved in the decision to take Israeli commandoes hostage was, effectively, engaged in terrorism, by the UN's definition and under international law.

IHH seems to have been clearly complicit, but the other groups such as Free Gaza may also be implicated in this terrorist act.

Israel would be within its rights to demand extradition of the hostage-takers, those who aided them, and those who know the identity of the hostage takers, to stand trial for these terrorism charges.

(h/t AB)

Elder gets mentioned in the NYT (blog)

One of the things I have been doing in the past week is look for egregious anti-Israel articles and respond to them, especially if they seem to be getting links from other prominent blogs or pundits.

One of them was a propaganda piece in Foreign Policy magazine that billed itself as a "fact sheet" on the blockade. As soon as I read it I saw that it was nothing of the sort, and I responded to it.

Today, the Opinionator blog in the New York Times has a discussion about the blockade, entitled "Is the embargo good for the Jews?" Within the article the author links to a number of discussions about the wisdom and basis for Israel's blockade of Gaza. Part of it was a reference to that same "fact sheet" - and my response.

The NYT blogger than said

"The writer considers Munayyer’s piece “propaganda,” and he certainly has a point.

And if I wouldn't have written what I did, the Foreign Policy piece would have been considered a factual reference piece for other journalists.

Small victories, but victories nonetheless.

IDFs clarifies earlier radio transmission between navy and Flotilla

Recently the IDF distributed a video in which "Peace activists" tell Jews to go back to Auschwitz. Many (including myself) were questioning the authenticity of this video and believed the IDF fabricated this video because of other possible known facts:

On hearing the recording Adam Shapiro, co-founder of the International Solidarity Movement, identified the woman's voice as that of his wife Huwaida Arraf, chair of the Free Gaza Movement. However, Arraf was not aboard the Mavi Marmara. She was aboard one of the small passenger vessels in the six-boat flotilla, called Challenger 1.

The IDF spokesperson clarifies now:

"the audio was edited down to cut out periods of silence over the radio as well as incomprehensible comments so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange. We have now uploaded the entire segment of 5 minutes and 58 seconds in which the exchange took place and the comments were made.

This transmission had originally cited the Mavi Marmara ship as being the source of these remarks, however, due to an open channel, the specific ship or ships in the “Freedom Flotilla” responding to the Israeli Navy could not be identified. During radio transmissions between Israeli Navy and the ships of the “Free Gaza” Flotilla on 31 May 2010, the Israeli Navy ship attempts to make contact with the ‘Defne Y’ on channel 1-6. Other ships from the flotilla respond on the channel, without identifying themselves. At some point during the radio exchange the Israeli Navy is told by one of the ships to “shut up, go back to Auschwitz” (2:05) and “don’t forget 9-11″ (5:42)."

Here it is, the unedited version:

UPDATE: Defne Y is a cargo ship and it was one of the ships of Flotilla which came from Turkey.

Egyptians married to Jewish Israelis can lose their citizenship

It was mentioned on this blog before that Egyptians married to "Zionists" might lose their citizenship. Then the High Administrative Court had yet to rule on this issue. Back then, the lawyer who took the case to the court, Nabil al-Wahsh, said: "Egyptian nationality law warns against marriage to anyone characterized as Zionist." And: ""The majority are married to Israelis considered Zionist, and only 10 percent are married to Arab Israelis."

Now it turns out that the Egyptian appeals court has upheld the ruling that orders the country's Interior Ministry to strip the citizenship from Egyptians married to Israeli women.

AFP:

Judge Mohammed al-Husseini, sitting on the Supreme Administrative Court, said the interior ministry must ask the cabinet to take the necessary steps to strip Egyptian men married to Israeli women, and their children, of their citizenship.

Before reading the verdict, Husseini said the case would not apply to Egyptian men married to Arab Israeli women.

"The case for (Egyptian) men married to Israeli Arab women is different to those married to Israeli women of Jewish origin because (Israeli Arabs) have lived under Israeli occupation," Husseini told the court.

I wonder what the next step of the interior and foreign ministries will be as they had appealed to the case, saying it was for parliament to decide on such matters.

"Peace activist" brags: "We had captured another Shalit"

Waleed al-Tabtabai, a member of Kuwai's national assembly and a Muslim Brotherhood member, was on the flotilla. In the Kuwaiti Al Rai newspaper, quoted by Palestine Today, he said that his group ad captured an Israeli soldier.

"We had a new Shalit; we captured him and he urinated on himself on the Marmala.

"I was on a humanitarian mission risking my self and spirit, and Israel has provided us witha great propaganda service with their barbaric brutality attacking vessels of freedom.

He refused to answer questions from the Zionist interrogator. "I told him you are pirates ..and the killers of prophets."

When humanitarian aid becomes a political game

Hezbollah's television station Al-Manar mentions that Fatah official al-Ahmad said that the Gaza Strip does not need humanitarian food or supplies as the Palestinian Authority secures the needs of the Gaza Strip on a daily basis.

Al-Ahmad:

“I confidently say that Gaza does not need humanitarian or food supplies because the PA is securing all of this. The PA sends 200 trucks into Gaza, not through Rafah but through other crossings,” he told the German News Agency. “These trucks are always full of food supplies, medicaments, and fuel,” he added.

In case of a so-called humanitarian crisis, you would expect that all aid is welcome. But it's not in the Gaza Strip where aid is not always greeted with enthusiasm as the German weekly Der Spiegel points out:

"People who are not in with Hamas don't see any of the relief goods or the gifts of money," Khadar says. On the sand dune where his house once perched, there is now an emergency shelter. The shelter is made of concrete blocks that Khadar dug from the rubble, and the roof is the canvas of a tent that provided the family with shelter for the first summer after the war. "Hamas supporters get prefabricated housing, furnishings and paid work. We get nothing," Khadar complains. (...)

The reason his family receives nothing: Like many of his neighbors, Khadar is a die-hard supporter of the Fatah party, the sworn political enemy of the more radical Islamists in Hamas. That's why Khadar has little hope of seeing any of the 10,000 tons of aid that the activist flotilla heading for the Gaza Strip tried to bring to Gaza's harbor at the start of this week. (...)

The bulk of the goods, which were temporarily confiscated, have since been released by Israel and brought to the Gaza border. But now there's another problem: Hamas is playing politics. The autocratic rulers of the Gaza Strip have placed conditions on aid delivery. The goods are not to be brought into the territory piece by piece, but all at once. All or nothing. By making these demands Hamas wants to ensure the building materials are all handed over. (...)

And he appeals to aid organizations to do everything they can to try and deliver their goods directly to the citizens of Gaza. Hamas should not be allowed to get hold of it. Khadar becomes particularly enraged when he talks about his neighbors behind the dune. The Hamas prime minister of Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, recently gave them a brand new house, complete and ready for them to move in.

And indeed, Khadar's neighbor, Aderauf al-Batsch's front door boasts a commemorative plaque celebrating that memorable event. The 35-year-old homeowner does not dispute his relationship to Hamas, but he does dispute any accusations of preference. "The construction ministry held a lottery to win a new home. And I just happened to be the winner," Batsch explains. Does he think it's a strange coincidence that he, the neighborhood's only Hamas supporter, should have won the contest? No. "Sometimes in life you get lucky," he says.

And guess what? If it is not part of a political game, it's bad for business:

There are people in Gaza though who will never be happy about the arrival of the aid. "Everything that arrives here, and is distributed free of charge, is bad for business," says one Palestinian pharmacist, who studied in Germany but preferred not to give his name for fear of reprisals. Every medicine and every toy that well-meaning Westerners donate endanger the few jobs that still remain in Gaza, he explains. A colleague at another pharmacy agrees. "We are being bred into dependency," he says, repeating the universal adage that guides international aid: "If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you give him a fishing rod, you feed him for a lifetime."

But even though the internal ideological problems and the oppressive behavior of radical organizations such as Hamas are exposed, they still believe that in order to let the PalArabs to stand on their own feet the Israeli blockade must first end. It is a shame that Der Spiegel did not ask when they think Israel would end its blockade. Because that answer seems obvious: when the hatred and the attacks from Gaza will stop.

Shabbat Shalom, welcome Suzanne open thread

OK, I'm wiped.

81 posts this week. Over 32,000 hits. An overwhelming number of links, stories, and videos.

I need help!

I asked Suzanne if she wants to be a co-blogger. Suzanne has been commenting on this blog for a long time and has contributed a great deal of good pointers to stories. She is an exceptional researcher who was instrumental in getting much of the data in our research on dead terrorists who were considered "civilians" in Gaza.

She lives in the Netherlands, and has uncovered some great stories in the European press that would have gone unnoticed otherwise, including the extraordinarily popular post from this week from the Danish journalist who visited Gaza. I don't know how many languages she knows, but I have a feeling it is a lot! In addition, she has shown that she is better than I am at finding stories in the Arabic media and navigating the entire auto-translation jungle.

In addition, she has shown in her communications with me that she is very devoted to truth, and she has chided me for occasionally spinning stories in ways that might not be 100% accurate. That is a fantastic quality.

I know nothing else about her, but the beauty of cyberspace is that people can be judged purely by their words and nothing else. By that standard, Suzanne is a gem.

She hasn't quite formally accepted my invitation but I saw her log in and start writing a post, so this is my way to encourage her to officially join, and become become the first Eldress.

(I still have the open invitation to Zvi to join the blog as well. Nu?)

Anyway, here is a Shabbat open thread.

A bunch of flotilla-related links and other stuff (updated)

Too many things to blog!

Barry Rubin notes that the leader of the humanitarian flotilla really seems to like jihad and death.

He has another good piece as well.

Krauthammer nails it.

The Jerusalem Post reveals more details of the operation.

Eric Posner, expert on international law, says that Israel could have sunk the ships legally!

Yid With Lid on Helen Thomas' polite suggestion that Jews get the hell out of "Palestine" and go to where they came from. On video!

MEMRI has a compilation of relevant Arab videos:

From Firas Press.- the Muslim Brotherhood supports Mohamed ElBaradei in his possible run for president of Egypt. Fun.

I need to relax this Shabbat. Badly.

"Peace activists" tell Jews to go back to Auschwitz

Latest from the IDF:

Anti-Israel propaganda disguised as a backgrounder

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/want_to_know_more_about_israel.htmlForeign Policy has what appears to be a well-sourced, fact-based article called "What exactly is the blockade of Gaza?" Ezra Klein at the WashPo raves about it (from Memeorandum.)

Unfortunately, the article does nothing to answer its titular question. It just uses statistics and, in one case, an outright lie to show how Gazans' lives are not great, and by implication is blames Israel's blockade on all of these things. it doesn't say a word as to why there is a blockade, whether it is legal, what Israel does to help Gazans nor whether Egypt shares any responsibility for the blockade. It is meant to anger, not inform.

Written by Yousef Munayyer, Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund and the Palestine Center, it starts off talking about Gaza's electricity woes. What he doesn't mention is that Israel does not limit fuel shipments to Gaza for its power plant - that limitation is mostly from the Palestinian Arab ability to pay the fuel bills. He doesn't mention that Israel has shipped plenty of equipment to maintain the electrical grid - hardly a "blockade." He doesn't mention that 70% of Gaza's Elecricity is supplied directly by Israel.

In other words, he chooses some facts and lets the reader draw the wrong conclusion.

Next, he says "Israel has not permitted supplies into the Gaza Strip to rebuild the sewage system." This is, simply, a lie. Israel's MFA site says

During the first quarter of 2010, the UN coordinated with Israel the transfer of equipment for UNWRA to upgrade the sewage pumping station.... Moreover, 48 trucks of equipment for improving the sanitation infrastructure led to a substantial reduction in the Beit Lahya facility's waste levels.

Munayyer mentions that the health sector was damaged by Cast Lead, but doesn't mention that nearly 5000 tons of medical equipment and medicine has somehow been allowed through Israel's blockade. Israel shipped wheelchairs, crutches, first aid kits, heart-monitors, baby feeding tubes, dental equipment, medical books, ambulance emergency equipment, artificial limbs and infant sleeping bags. Much more has arrived this year.

He says that "1103 individuals applied for permits to exit the Israeli-controlled Erez crossing for medical treatment in 2009" of which 20% were delayed or denied. This is a nicely deceptive statistic, since the number of Gazans went to Israel for medical purposes was over 10,000.

He doesn't mention how many patients didn't make it to Egypt.

In other words, this is a pure propaganda piece disguised as a fact-based backgrounder. To see real numbers, all you have to do is go to Israel's MFA site.

Who cares about Gazans? Not the flotilla!

Today, Jordan sent 52 trucks of aid to Gaza.

More will arrive tomorrow, including medical supplies.

The goods are being sent by the Jordan Hashemite Charity Organization.

Two weeks ago, another aid convoy from Jordan arrived in Gaza - including aid from Saudi Arabia.

Also this week, Egypt's Red Crescent sent aid to Gaza, including blankets and tents, via the Rafah crossing.

Quietly, Arab countries and Israel cooperate in ensuring that Gaza's needs are fully met. Even Syria has sent trucks filled with aid to Gaza.

What do the "humanitarians" from the West think Arab nations, quietly cooperating with the Zionist enemy, helping Gazans? According to them, isn't this a model for peace and goodwill?

Not at all.

An internal Free Gaza email from last November complained about how too many of their potential donors preferred to send aid to Gaza rather than support their blockade-busting boats. And they said explicitly that "We firmly believe that activists and people who care about Palestine should not be raising money for humanitarian aid."

In other words, the flotilla supporters don't care at all about getting aid to Gazans. They don't want Jordan or Egypt or Saudi Arabia or the UAE or any of the other Arab states to send supplies. They refuse to deal with Israel - as opposed to Israel's implacable enemies.

They hate Israel more than the Arabs do!

This is the fundamental truth about Free Gaza, Viva Palestina, IHH and the other groups that mount very public shows of sending aid to Gaza. The supposed victims are just pawns - they are targeting the supposed oppressors.

The ones who cooperate with their enemies to get aid to Gazans.

The hate is palpable. Almost all of the interviews with these supposed humanitarians show them suffused with intense anger towards Israel, and very little love towards Gazans. The only Gazans they show real solidarity with are their Hamas dictators, as the "humanitarians" love to remind the world that Hamas was democratically elected - as if that somehow makes the terrorists less reprehensible.

No, there is only one thing that binds these "activists" together, and that is a desire to see Israel disappear. Free Gaza's Greta Berlin said as much to the New York Times:

[S]he says that her detractors in Israel are right, that she does not accept Israel as a Jewish state, though she contends that is part of a larger philosophy which opposes all national borders.

It just so happens that the only national borders she spends time opposing are Israel's.

In the final analysis, based on how they behave and their words, the so-called "humanitarians" are the exact opposite of human rights workers. They explicitly excuse every Hamas or Islamic Jihad atrocity and they oppose everything Israel does for the defense of its citizens.They don't even take advantage of Egypt's opening of the Rafah border to send aid to Gazans. They are hypocrites of the highest order.

Most of all, the flotilla supporters care less about the quality of life of Gazans than Israel does.

YouTube takes down my video of IHH beating IDF soldiers

YouTube has taken down one of my two videos that showed Israeli news footage- using the activists cameras! - of the initial seconds when the IDF soldiers were being beaten. Obviously pro-terror groups complained in order to stifle the evidence that showed them to be hypocrites when they say they are "peace activists."

My video was, as far as I can tell, the first one on YouTube that showed the actual attack. I copied it from an Israeli news site. I also captioned it, describing what was happening.

Luckily, the original video is all over the place, even on YouTube:

How long will they allow the video of the IDF soldier being stabbed to remain?

Will they allow the IDF to keep their videos up?

I appealed, but don't have a great track record with YouTube.

This is of course outrageous - the video has been shown on American and British TV newscasts, and YouTube is not more prudish than American network TV. It is just them caving to those who do not want the truth to be exposed.

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

From Gulf News:

"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?

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)