Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Friday, June 11, 2010

More on Hamas' siege of Gaza

After pressure from President Obama, discussions have accelerated between Israel, the Quartet, the EU, the PA and Egypt to see if the Rafah crossing can be re-opened under a variation of the rules that were in place before Hamas' coup in Gaza.

These included an international team of European observers called EUBAM-Rafah, PA officers manning the crossing, and cameras that Israel kept an eye on from Kerem Shalom. Israel was never happy with the level of inspections, though.

After the coup, EUBAM went into paid hibernation, waiting to become relevant again and doing the occasional lecture to the PA to justify their paychecks.

How does Hamas look at these attempts to ease the restrictions on movement of people and goods into Gaza?

Why, they are spitting mad, of course.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri lashed out at the PA and Egypt, saying that they were using the Rafah issue as a pretext to weaken Hamas and facilitate the ultimate takeover of Gaza by Fatah.

Gee, do you get the impression that Hamas is more interested in staying in power and having complete control over all of Gaza's crossings than they are in the welfare of the people of Gaza?

More details on why Egypt is banning marriage to Israeli Jewish women

Al Masry al-Youm goes into an interesting detail of the justification for Egypt's new law that bans Egyptian men from marrying Israeli Jews (and, just maybe, Jews altogether):

The higher court's final--and irreversible--June 5 ruling is designed, according to Nabil el-Wahash, the lawyer who first raised the case, to protect Egypt's national security and prevent a new generation of Egyptians "disloyal to Egypt and the Arab world."

The case stems from the fact that, in Judaic tradition, religion is passed down through the mother, thus rendering Jewish all children born to Jewish mothers. Since, under Israeli state law, all Jews are eligible to become citizens of Israel--the self-proclaimed "Jewish state"--the offspring of Egyptian men married to Israeli women could theoretically apply for Israeli citizenship, which would oblige them to temporarily serve in the Israeli military. Seeing this as a potential conflict of interest, the Egyptian judiciary upheld the ruling to strip Egyptian men married to Jewish-Israeli women of their citizenship.

Under Egypt's citizenship law, three crimes can lead to the forfeiture of one's citizenship: if he or she is found to pose a threat to national security; is guilty of treason; or if he or she is a Zionist, explained Hafez Abu Saeda, head of the Cairo-based Egyptian Organization for Human Rights.

Discrimination aside, critics of the law say it contains a number of loopholes, including, among other things, the question of Egyptian men marrying Jewish women not carrying Israeli passports. With Jews anywhere in the world eligible to become Israeli citizens, might a new law be enacted to strip the citizenship of all Egyptian men married to Jewish women, Israeli or otherwise?

While this remains highly unlikely, Egypt and Israel remain neighbors--officially at peace since 1979--so Israeli women are therefore set to remain a common factor in Egyptian-Jewish marriages.

The logic of this law is exactly the same as a law that would outlaw Jews from living in Egypt.

Notice that Egypt has a law that makes being a "Zionist" a reason to strip someone of their citizenship. This means that even three decades after the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, Egypt still does not fundamentally accept the right of Israel to exist - because that is what Zionism is.

I wonder if Jordan has a similar law.

(The article also quotes the highly exaggerated figure that some 30,000 Egyptians are married to Israeli Jews - a figure that was pretty much plucked out of thin air, and is probably exaggerated by one or two orders of magnitude.)

Israeli plot to steal water from the Nile revealed!

Al Masry al-Youm reports:

The ruling National Democratic Party's policies secretariat has reportedly received a confidential memorandum from a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs detailing Israeli designs to gain access to the waters of the Nile River in exchange for completing construction of the Gongli Canal project in southern Sudan.

It is estimated that, when complete, the Gongli Canal project would increase Sudan's and Egypt's annual share of Nile water by between 10 billion and 15 billion cubic meters. According to the memorandum, Israel plans to ask for half of these amounts, for which it is prepared to pay US$0.1 per cubic meter.

According to these charges, Israeli expertise can increase the amount of fresh water available to Egypt and Sudan by a huge amount. In exchange, Israel wants to pay low rates to buy some of this water that would not exist without Israeli help.

Egypt would lose nothing, and would gain enormously. Yet the NDP would rather deny their own citizens access to water in order to keep Israelis from getting water!

How's that for hate?

Not only hat, but the NDP is so confident that this idea - of Israelis helping Egyptians and Sudanese get billions more cubic meters of fresh water - is abhorrent to average Egyptian that it leaks this alleged plan as a scandal!

Here is how Palestine Today illustrates the reported water plan - a stereotypical Jew cutting the veins of Egypt in the shape of the Nile river basin.

This is the difference between Arabs and Israelis in a nutshell. Israel keeps trying to find win-win solutions, things that would benefit everyone in the region. This is how they approach the peace process, relations with Arabs, and relations with the rest of the world. They will constantly seek solutions that not only help themselves but everyone else as well.

To Arabs, however, everything involving Israel is a zero-sum game, and if Israel gains anything, then, by definition, the Arabs lose.

This is no exaggeration - in fact, some Arabs will happily admit this fact.

The natural outcome from all this is that Arabs will hurt their own people in order to hurt Israel, and when Israel helps Arabs that is considered a defeat for the Arab nation - because this is what Israelis want to do. Peace itself is considered a loss for Arab honor!

Zionism itself was meant to be a win-win - where the Arabs of Palestine would be enriched and all boats would rise with the huge economic and social benefits that accompany the Jewish return to their homeland. Arab leaders and intellectuals couldn't think in those terms, because being helped by the hated Jews is an affront to their honor. (The ordinary citizens generally had no such problems, and remain today the main victims of their leaders' intransigence and dedication to the zero-sum game.)

The contrast between the two worldviews cannot be starker. One is enlightened and progressive, seeking solutions to problems; the other is primitive and archaic, preferring to exacerbate their own problems in order to inflict damage on a hated enemy.

And Israel has to figure out how to live in a region where "lose-lose" is considered, perversely, a victory.

Egyptian delegation upset Hamas served Israeli food

Palestine Press Agency reports on an argument that broke out between an Egyptian delegation to Gaza and their Hamas hosts.

Ismail Haniyeh hosted a fancy luncheon for the Egyptians, members of a parliamentary delegation to help reconcile Hamas with Fatah.

When the Egyptians saw that some of the food on the table was labeled "Made in Israel," they became upset. One exclaimed, "By Allah, shame on you."

The Council has Spoken

Once again, I am honored to have had a post nominated for the weekly Watcher of Weasel awards. (And once again, I lost.)

I had posted so much in the past week, I had to click on the link to remember what the nominated post was about. It just goes to show that sometimes, the posts that one doesn't think are very important end up making waves, and vice versa - posts that I think would go viral instead go nowhere.

Thanks to Snapped Shot for nominating me!

Newest videos shed more light on Mavi Marmara raid (part 2)

The Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center showed once again how closely aligned it is with the IDF, as it has posted two videos and one transcript of interrogations with the captain and the chief officer of the Mavi Marmara.

Here is their synopsis:

1. The videotaped statements of two Mavi Marmara crew members show that preparations for a violent confrontation with IDF forces were put in motion about two hours before the boarding began, when the Israeli Navy hailed the ship and told it to halt.

2. According to the statements, the atmosphere aboard the Mavi Marmara was tense and the crew noticed a gathering on the main deck. When they checked the upper deck they discovered that IHH operatives were cutting the ship’s railings with metal disks they had brought with them into lengths suitable to be used as clubs. The crew members said the activities worried them and that they tried to stop the operatives but were unsuccessful.

I put the two videos together; the captain is speaking English and the chief officer is subtitled:

Here's the transcript from the chief officer:

Statement: I was on the bridge after dark, before anything happened, the third captain and I were sent in the direction of the life boats, where there were a lot of people and a lot of noise. The captain told me something was happening down there, there are noises, go see what’s going on. There were a lot of people. I told the third captain, you are more senior than I, come with me.”

Q: When did that happen?

A: Around eight o’clock, I don’t know exactly when, but around eight. I went down the stairs with the third captain. We saw a senior person [from IHH]

Q: Who?

A: That guy.

Q: What guy?

A: That guy. Maybe the third captain knows his name.

Q: The guy from IHH?

A: Yes, from IHH.

Q: Whose name does he know? The name of the guy from IHH who cut the railings?

A: No, the third captain knows him from IHH. We [the third captain and I] went together, we saw a lot of people milling around and we asked what was going on.

Q: Did you see them cutting [the railings]?

A: They [the iron rods] were already cut. It was all over.

Q: Who did the cutting?

A: I didn’t see.

Q: Who was holding the disk?

A: The disks were lying in a corner of the stairs and the senior guy [apparently a reference to Bülent Yildirim] was next to them.

Q: The senior guy from IHH?

A: Yes.

Q: Who did the disks belong to?

A: I don’t know, they didn’t belong to the ship. We don’t have equipment like that on board. On deck there were metal poles with clips for cables, when I got there they had been cut.

Q: When did this happen?

A: When it was getting dark. I asked one of them who cut the poles, and he said he didn’t know.

Q: Was the man you asked a crew member?

A: No.

Q: Did he belong to IHH?

A: Of course.

Q: You seem to be saying that the people from IHH were in control of the ship. Did the crew need their permission to move around the ship?

A: Definitely, they [i.e. IHH operatives] didn’t let people they didn’t know move around.

Q: Did they prevent anyone they didn’t know from moving freely around the ship?

A: Yes, definitely.

Q: And was that from the first moment they went up on deck?

A: Yes, definitely.

Q: How did the IHH operatives communicate with one another?

A: When they [the IHH operatives] got on board in Istanbul they brought walkie-talkies with them. They were handed out to the IHH operatives and the crew.

Q: Did you [the crew] get them as well?

A: Yes, each one worked on a different frequency.

Q: I don’t understand, they didn’t let the passengers and crew go from one deck to another?

A: They could go anywhere except to the control center they set up on the bridge.

Q: How many IHH operatives were there on the upper deck.

A: Forty.

Q: The same forty all the time or did they change?

A: More of less the same forty.

Q: You’re referring to the group that joined the ship in Istanbul?

A: yes.

So it seems more and more clear that most of the passengers of the Marmara didn't know what the IHH plans were and possibly wouldn't have approved; yet they must have known that the IHH had taken control of the ship and was calling the shots - co-opting the European and American flotilla organizers.

It also appears that the passenger/witnesses have closed ranks around IHH, not willing to say anything bad about a group that had violent intent. Keep in mind that the crew here is saying that the IHH was already cutting iron bars and chains at nightfall; they say two hours before the IDF was visible but probably some 6-8 hours before the helicopters arrived (at around 4 AM.)

This brings up the question of, if the boats already saw the passengers with the chains and iron bars from the boat, why the first wave of soldiers still came only armed with paintball guns.

(h/t OR)

Newest videos shed more light on Mavi Marmara raid (part 1)

One of the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara managed to get a 15-minute video out showing the passengers before and during the IDF raid.

It can be seen at the "Cultures of Resistance" site.

Some interesting parts:

Starting at around the 3:00 mark, we see an IDF helicopter hovering, and then at least 7 soldiers are seen rappelling down to the deck, much more quickly than those that came from the first helicopter. It appears that the IDF figured out very quickly what was going on and ensured that the mistakes from the first drop, where the soldiers were beaten, would not be repeated.

That section of the video was taken from the deck below the main deck. Even though it appears from other evidence that the IHH had a core of some 40 members who were planning to do the heavy fighting and who effectively took over the top deck (see next posting and video), there were people on the second deck who were also supplied with slingshots (3:40)

They mention having two soldiers "bleeding and wounded" but I'm not sure I see them (6:00) They might have been edited out.

Some of the IHH fighters are seen, wounded and dying.

Most interesting to me was the sequence at about 12:30, where an Israeli boat is speeding alongside the ship. Even though it is now morning, and clearly at least an hour since the first soldiers dropped onto the ship, the activists are still throwing debris towards the Israeli navy - which runs very much counter to the flotilla members' accounts of a white flag being immediately raised and a PA announcement of immediate surrender and stopping resistance. In this video we hear the captain telling people to go to their rooms and remain calm after daybreak, but we never hear the audio saying that the ship has surrendered.

More in the next post.

Toameh: what about Hamas' Siege of Gaza?

Arab-Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh asks What about Hamas' Siege of Gaza?

As Israeli naval commandos raided the flotilla ship convoy that was on its way to the Gaza Strip, Hamas security officers stormed the offices of five non-governmental organizations, confiscated equipment and documents, and ordered them closed indefinitely.

...

The raid on the NGOs in the Gaza Strip, which received little coverage in the media, is seen by many Palestinians as part of Hamas's ongoing crackdown on political opponents and human rights organizations.

Further, Hamas's recent decision to ban municipal elections in the Gaza Strip is yet another violation of one of the basic rights of its constituents.

Hundreds of Palestinians have been arrested by Hamas's security forces for daring to speak out against the state of tyranny and intimidation in the Gaza Strip. Over the past three years, dozens of Fatah officials and members have either been thrown into prison or killed.

Under Hamas, the Gaza Strip is being transformed into a fundamentalist Islamic entity resembling the regimes of the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

...

Instead of searching for ways to improve the living conditions of the 1.5 million Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, Hamas is busy enforcing strict Islamic rules on the population, such as Hamas policemen, for example, often stopping men and women who are seen together in public to inquire about the nature of their relationship.

...

Hamas, however, is more interested in clinging to power than in serving its people; and in light of increased calls for lifting the blockade following the flotilla incident at sea, the movement's leaders in Syria and the Gaza Strip are now convinced that they are marching in the right direction.

It is one thing to help the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, but it is another thing to help Hamas. Those who wish to deliver aid to the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip can always find better and safer ways to do so - either through Israel or Egypt. But those who only seek confrontation with Israel in the sea are only emboldening Hamas and helping it tighten its grip on the people of Gaza Strip.

The Forgotten Rachels

Rachel Corrie's death was a tragic accident, but the death of these Rachels could have been avoided. In light of the Rachel Corrie recently embarking for Gaza, the Jewish Virtual Library created this video as a tribute to "The Forgotten Rachels" who all died as a result of Palestinian terrorism:

(h/t sshender)

Hamas strengthens siege on Gaza

You remember, so many days ago, that humanitarians were up in arms because Gazans were not able to get coriander from Israel?

Israel has been derided for its seemingly arbitrary policies that seemed to allow certain items into Gaza while disallowing others.

Well, Israel just tried to ship a bunch of new items into Gaza, like snacks, spices (maybe even the dreaded coriander!) and sodas.

And Hamas rejected them.

As Al Arabiya reports:

Hamas said they will not let newly approved food items into the Gaza Strip as long as Israel maintains its blockade of the territory, as Arab League Chief Amr Moussa plans to visit the Strip on Sunday.

Israel slightly eased the much-criticized blockade on Wednesday by permitting snacks, spices and some other previously banned food items into Gaza.

Hamas' economy minister, Ziad al-Zaza, said on Thursday that Gaza doesn't need soda and soft drinks.

So are we going to be hearing about Hamas' siege on Gaza in the media?

Well, they didn't notice last year, so I don't think they'll notice it now.

By the way: there is no Israeli blacklist of items allowed in Gaza that includes coriander or jams. Gisha made up a list that they "deduced" from speaking to Gazans; that list was publicized by reporters and activists who thought it was too good to check. In fact, the IDF works on a day-to-day basis with various NGOs and others in Gaza to see what can make it in the upcoming shipments. Israel does have a list of allowed items that will always be allowed in; everything else is done on a case by case basis. If UNRWA made a special request for coriander or chocolate, there is no doubt that it would be allowed in. Right now, the problem is bureaucratic and practical, not policy.

U.S. Army Col. (Ret.) Ann Wright, on a speaking tour of the United States on behalf of radical pacifist women's group Code Pink, bills herself as an eyewitness to the IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara and the "murder" of "nine innocent civilians." However, in an interview with Aaron Lerner of IMRA, she admits she did not actually see the clash between the IDF soldiers and the armed passengers on board the Mavi Marmara.
In a promotional e-mail on behalf of "Code Pink: Women for Peace," Wright says: "I just returned from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and started my speaking tour last night in NYC to share what I witnessed aboard the flotilla, and what people can do to end the siege."
"I witnessed the Israeli attack that killed 9 persons and wounded 50 on the Gaza Flotilla... the murder of nine persons... Tragically, it took another example of disproportionate use of force by the Israeli military that resulted in the deaths of nine innocent civilians to force many governments of the world to call for the Israelis to end the siege of Gaza."
In the interview with Lerner she admitted that she was not aboard the Mavi Marmara but on a different ship, the Challenger, which was about 150 yards distant from the Marmara.
The confrontation took place between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m., in the dark of night (IDF footage of the raid was carried out with night vision equipment).

She admits:

My witness will be specifically what happened on our ship, the
Challenger. And then I can comment on what happened in the very first three
or four minutes as the Israeli commandos were trying to board the ship. We
saw that from the stern of the ship. But after that that's when my
witnessing from my own eyes of what happened on that ship would end.

Read the whole article...

Video: IHH member admits hostage-taking (updated)

Middle East News Watch brings us a video of a reporter who found this guy, Murat Akinan:

The reporter first notes that while the soldier is bloody, Akina doesn't have a scratch on him. Akina simply answers that the soldiers were firing and he was merely defending himself.

He answers the question of whether he intended to kidnap the soldier with a strange denial:

"No, [he] was given to me to protect, save him and trade him."

Seizing a person with the intent to bargain him to compel a state or group of people to do an act is the definition of hostage taking. And it is illegal under international conventions.

Yet I have yet to hear a "humanitarian" denounce this violation of humanitarian law. In fact, I have yet to hear a member of Free Gaza disassociating themselves from the actions of the IHH assaulters and kidnappers.

Makes you think that maybe they have a non-humanitarian agenda, doesn't it?

UPDATE: It is possible that the woman said "treat," not "trade." Which would make this post moot.

Now Gazans are whining about Egypt opening Rafah!

Palestine Today has an article about how Egypt's decision to open the Rafah crossings indefinitely has caused many Gazans, involved in the tunnel smuggling trade, to lose their jobs.

If whining were an Olympic event, there would be gold medals all over Gaza.

Radical Arabs really hate moderate Arabs

We have discussed radical, pro-Hamas pseudo-journalist Khaled Amayreh before. We have seen this ESP expert him try to start a new intifada, go beyond the "anti-zionist" meme to coin the word "Judo-Nazis, " and hurl bile at Elie Wiesel.

Today, he sets his sights upon relatively moderate Arab journalist Abdul Rahman al Rashed, who writes for Asharq Al-Awsat among other places. You can almost feel the spittle that must have been spraying all over his keyboard as he wrote this:

Just as Israel’s barbarianism was being exposed to hundreds of millions of viewers around the world, following the criminal state’s bloody raid on the Gaza Freedom flotilla on 31 May, Abdul Rahman al Rashed was barking from London, blaming Hamas for the persistence of the Israeli or more correctly Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the coastal territory.

Thus, in just one sound-bite he exonerated the world’s premier terrorists from any wrong doing, effectively granting a certificate of innocence to murderous Ashkenazi vandals who stole Palestine from its rightful owners and also to Nazi-like America which had just occupied and destroyed two sovereign Muslim nations based on lies and baseless allegations.

Abdul Rahman al Rashed is literally translated into “the Servant of the Compassionate (Allah), the rightly-guided.” However, a more fitting name for this intellectual midget should connote or denote the fact that he is a willing slave for Zionist propaganda and decadent Arab tyrannies.

His unscrupulous espousal and advocacy of Zionist narratives are beyond disgraceful. He should be called Abdul al Shaytan, [servant of Satan] rather than Abdul Rahman, and al Dhal ["The lost one" - h/t Ali] instead of al Rashed.

Yasser Arafat gave the Israelis everything they asked for, in the hope that they would relent and come to terms with Palestinian rights and dignity. He even went as far as tormenting and torturing his own people in order to obtain a certificate of good conduct from Isaac Rabin, the pseudo-peace dove who had ordered his troops to break the bones of Palestinian children. And what was the result of all this blindness of the mind? They killed him in his own headquarters in Ramallah.

And now the Commander of the Faithful in Ramallah, Abu Mazen, al-Rashed’s apparent darling, is even outmatching Arafat by indulging in all these stupid sycophantic theatrics that only serve to further degrade and dishonor the Palestinian people, while emboldening the Zio-Nazi leadership in Tel Aviv including the wild Jewish animals, known as the settlers in the West Bank.

The London-based quisling journalist is strikingly naïve. He is audacious enough to think that all the suffering in Gaza would come to an abrupt end if only Hamas and other Palestinian factions ignored the fate of thousands of Palestinian political prisoners and freedom fighters languishing in Zionist concentration camps by unconditionally releasing an Israeli prisoner of war and succumbing to “Chosen People” or “Master Race.”

Amayreh is still quoted all over the place as if he is a legitimate journalist rather than a hatemonger and bigot. He seems to spend his entire life in a permanent state of anger and denial - and blame.

Does Daniel Kurtzer think that Israel could do anything to reduce his psychotic hate, and that a serious percentage of Arabs do not share his insane venom?

Which Gazans get first choice on aid? One guess.

The JC publishes an article by a Gazan journalist about what life is like for him in Gaza, with sporadic electricity and unsafe tap water, among other problems.

Of course, no one is arguing that Gaza is a paradise, just that the inability for journalists to to surf the web more than eight hours a day is hardly a humanitarian crisis.

Most interesting was this one section:

I drive to work in my used car. I have a Fiat from 1984, which cost me $5,000, and not a day goes by without a visit to the mechanic. But although my car is so old, every day people stop me to ask whether I am selling. For the past three years, importing cars has been forbidden. The only exception is the cars brought into Gaza by George Galloway, which are used by members of the Hamas government.

Did Galloway's Viva Palestina organization tell their volunteers that the hundreds of vehicles they were bringing to Gaza were going straight to Hamas?

Of course not:

What are we taking with us into Gaza?

VEHICLES:
Vehicles are in great demand in Gaza after the devastating attack that destroyed machinery, ambulances, fire engines and other such civil service vehicles. The crippling siege does not allow for the entry of materials and equipment that could potentially repair these vehicles. In addition, the staggering number of casualties created an overwhelming need for vehicles to transport injured and maimed civilians to and from medical treatment.

So while Viva Palestina said that these vehicles would be used for medical and other critical needs, it appears from the JC article that Hamas members are enjoying the privileges of these cars for their own personal use.

IDF briefing before the raid (video)

Somehow, I had missed this pretty important video, made and uploaded to YouTube on May 27th - days before the raid on the flotilla.

It shows clearly that the IDF had no intent whatsoever to hurt any of the activists, and that they only expected the usual kind of non-violent resistance - spitting, cursing, throwing cigarettes at the soldiers. The soldiers are exhorted to act professionally and humanely.

The difference between what happened on the Mavi Marmara and the other ships shows this was indeed the case.

Israel provides World Cup broadcasts in Arabic. Arabs complain.

Daniel Kurtzer, former US ambassador to Israel and Egypt, wrote in a recent op-ed:

In the aftermath of the flotilla fiasco, it is not just Israel’s military tactics and its blockade of Gaza that need a thorough reexamination. Its narrative does, too. A dose of empathy might be a place to start. Israel will not break by military force and tough rhetoric alone the political and moral double standards by which the world judges its actions. But it can make its case better by tempering force with diplomacy, by caring as much about the humanitarian distress among Palestinians as it does about humanitarian causes elsewhere in the world, and by developing a storyline infused with the moral and ethical standards by which Israelis judge their own behavior.

Kurtzer thinks that if Israel would just act nicer towards Arabs, they will naturally reciprocate that goodwill and this could be a first step towards peace, love and cute little puppies.

An article in Palestine Today indicates that this is not necessarily the case.

Gazans are scrambling to find ways that they can watch the World Cup. Al Jazeera is scrambling its World Cup signal and requires that viewers pay for the right to watch it. It is unclear from the article whether Gazans are unable or unwilling to pay, so they are trying alternative means to receive the games.

Some are building TV antennas to pick up signals from pirate TV stations in the West Bank who are trying to get around AL Jazeera's monopoly. Others are trying to descramble the Al Jazeera signal to watch for free. (Al Jazeera announced that some of the games would be broadcast for free.)

The article then mentions that "the occupying power" is providing World Cup coverage in Arabic for free, alongside its Hebrew coverage. It is hiring senior Arab sports analysts for these broadcasts.

But rather than showing appreciation for this move, the article says that this is being done to steal Arab viewers away from the Al Jazeera coverage!

Kurtzer is way too optimistic. Arabs might privately appreciate and respect what Israel does, but the culture is set up so that it is inconceivable that this private appreciation will ever translate into the public sphere.

Perhaps the reason that Kurtzer is not writing op-eds about that aspect of the problem is because he knows, deep down, how useless it is.

Did Reuters do it again?

Here's another photo of a "peace activist" aboard the Mavi Marmara and its Reuters caption:

A pro-Palestinian activist holds a bottle on board the Gaza-bound Turkish ship Mavi Marmara in the international waters of the Mediterranean Sea early May 31, 2010. Israeli marines stormed the Turkish aid ship bound for Gaza on Monday and nine pro-Palestinian activists were killed, triggering a diplomatic crisis and an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council. Picture taken May 31, 2010. REUTERS/Adem Ozkose/Gercek Hayat Magazine via IHH/Handout

He's just holding a bottle? What could the possible purpose of the bottle be? When you are drinking your soda, do you hold a bottle upside down? And doesn't it look suspiciously empty?

Now, we know from the very first day that the "peace activists" attacked the IDF soldiers with, among other things, broken bottles.

Here is a screengrab from a Mavi Marmara video as the so-called humanitarians were preparing their weapons, showing a broken green bottle being held at a very similar angle - as a weapon:

I cannot find the original IHH handout picture from which Reuters took this, but isn't it interesting that this photo's edge just happens to be at the exact spot necessary to turn a picture of a man holding a weapon into a mere picture of a man holding a bottle?

At the very least, Reuters' caption is highly misleading - and, it appears, knowingly so.

(pointed out via email tip)

UPDATE: LGF noticed it a couple of days ago.

Camera: Gun-running Bishop in Flotilla

Retired Archbishop Hilarion Capucci joined the Free Gaza Movement's aid Flotilla to the Gaza Strip on the Mavi Marmara.

To Reuters he said:

"Our trip to Gaza was a trip of love and God was with us. Israel by its actions had rightly drawn world outrage over its brutality against unarmed people carrying a message of love to an innocent occupied people under siege."

However, Reuters does not fail to mention in this article that this "peace-loving" Bischop was imprisoned by Israel in 1974 and later deported.

Camera has more and dug into his past:

Capucci was arrested by Israeli police on Aug. 18, 1974 and charged with smuggling weapons into the West Bank. The following day the New York Times reported that Capucci, who was born and raised in Syria, was accused of “acting as undercover liaison man between Al Fatah guerrilla group [in Lebanon] and Palestinian guerilla cells” in the West Bank [see also the article below as published in Star-News - Aug 19, 1974 , Suz.] . According to a Times summary, police reported that

large quantities of weapons and explosives were found hidden in his Mercedes sedan in Aug after he returned from visit to Lebanon. Source says Capucci was associated with abortive incident in May during Sec Kissinger's visit in which 3 Katyusha rockets were aimed at the center of Jerusalem. Rockets were discovered before they went off.

Later that month (Aug. 24), the Times reported that Capucci had allegedly told Israelis that he was “forced into guerrilla service by threats of blackmail.” Capucci told the Israelis that he was threatened with physical violence and “the disclosure of actions that might jeopardize his position” within the church. The Times also reported that Capucci faced charges of being accessory to murder because three men who were accused of murdering a Jerusalem taxi driver obtained their weapons from one of Capucci's drop points.

During the trial, Capucci refused to give a statement or sworn evidence because he said Jerusalem was Arab territory and that “Israeli law does not apply in the city” (New York Times, Oct. 30, 1974).

Eventually, Capucci was convicted and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He spent two years in prison before the Israeli government released him after a special request from the Vatican. On Nov. 4, 1977 the Washington Post reported from Jerusalem about Capucci's impending release:

Demands for Capucci's release have turned up regularly in the lists submitted by airplane hijackers, including the Entebbe hijackers, but where the threats have failed, a personal letter from Pope Paul has apparently succeeded. …. The price Israel extracted from the Vatican for Capucci's release was a personal letter from the Pope which, according to officials here, contains some admission of Capucci's guilt and the acknowledgement that he received a fair trial. At the very least, sources said, the letter cannot be construed as a denial of his guilt. The appeal is being made on humanitarian grounds.

The understanding with the Vatican, according to Israeli sources, is that Capucci will not be allowed to make propaganda for the Arabs against Israel and that he is to be posted to a place outside the Middle East.
….

There seems to be very little question that Capucci was in fact smuggling arms for the Palestinian Liberation Organization and at least one Israeli is thought to have died as a result. The PLO denies his guilt and has declared him a martyr, but privately many PLO members do not bother to deny his guilt and deplore his carelessness in getting caught.
.…

Capucci has been held in the maximum security prison in Ramleh since his conviction, according to diplomatic sources who have visited him, and has been accorded better treatment than the average prisoner.

Israel's demand that Capucci would not propagandize was likely a response to a letter he wrote from prison which was published in a number of venues including the Journal of Palestine Studies. In the letter, Capucci portrays Israel as violating and desecrating the Holy Land, undermining the Al Aska Mosque and violating the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. “Our most precious land has been desecrated and we have shuddered with repulsion to see it happen.”

Upon his release from Israeli prison on November 4, 1977, Capucci was assigned to serve Melkite communities in Latin America (Washington Post, Dec. 23, 1977). “His assignment to a post outside the Middle East was thought to be a condition of his release,” the Post reiterated.

On May 8, 1979, the Washington Post reported that Capucci “surprised the Vatican and irked Israel by attending a Palestine Liberation Organization Meeting in Damascus. The Vatican reportedly has told Israel it will try to keep him out of the Middle East.”

During the Iran hostage crisis, Capucci was sent to Iran to ascertain the condition of the Americans held in Tehran. His presence was not welcome by the American hostages. On Jan. 29, 1981 the New York Times reported the following about Capucci's visit to the hostages in Iran:

From his home in Olyphant, Pa., Michael J. Metrinko, political officer, criticized Archbishop Hilarion Capucci of the Melkite Church of the Eastern Rite. He said the Archbishop, who made one trip with Father Rupiper [another priest who had visited the hostages], had seen a few well-treated prisoners ''and spent the rest of the time enjoying himself with the guards.''

''I tried to tell Capucci what things were like, and he just went into a diatribe about how bad things were in Israeli prisons,'' Mr. Metrinko said.

Hilarion Capucci, man of peace.

Such a peaceful man, indeed! At least he admits he did not serve the years he should have served in jail. To the Brisbane Times he said:

''They warned if I tried to return again they would lock me up for the eight years of the jail sentence which I did not serve,'' he told the Herald.

''I would prefer to be in a small jail in Palestine than in the bigger prison of exile.''

Israel let him go, though.

Google translates its caption as:

"The pilothouse of the rope to where the ships are waiting to here with the three Israeli commandos in the brawl took place between a group of volunteers. In the melee one soldier was trying to cast into the sea, but some groups opposed to it. Neutralizing the soldiers return, then downloaded to the hall on the second floor."

How believable is that version of the story after seeing this?

Look carefully at 0:28. I'm starting to believe that the picture they took was of the soldier right of the soldier who was thrown overboard. What do you think?

"Enjoy the 'Bridge'" - Turkish op-ed slams Erdogan's love of Hamas

From Burak Bekdil at Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper (English edition):

From the first day under the rule of an Islamist elite, Turkey was bound to be a “Muslim bridge between the East and East.” It is becoming one, if it was not already. Those Western diplomats who wholeheartedly believed in the bridge between the West and East tale… those who wholeheartedly believed in the “Turkey-is-an-honest-broker-between-Israel-and Hamas/Syria” tale deserve the finest of all decorations and promotions for their incredible prophesy and reason, including early retirement and postings to challenging capitals such as Bujumbura, Belmopan, Malabo, Suva, Melekeok, Sao Tome and Nuku’alofa (though they are lucky I am not anyone’s minister).

Forget the silly “bridge talk.” The inescapable truth is that Turkey as an honest broker between Israel and Hamas or between Israel and Syria is tantamount to Israel as an honest broker between Turkey and Israel.

A few days ago, the Washington Post reminded its readers that Hamas had killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings and other attacks, and that most Western countries considered it a terrorist organization. But what does the chief engineer of the bridge between the West and East think of Hamas?

At a public rally where anti-Israeli emotions were running high, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan shouted loud and clear that Hamas is not a terrorist organization. Its members are, Mr. Erdoğan argued at the weekend, resistance fighters. The prime minister’s justification is that Hamas cannot be a terrorist organization because it was democratically-elected.

That could be a dangerous precedent. I think the immediate and wisest thing for the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, to do is to run for the next Turkish elections under the name PKK. Murat Karayılan and his comrades in arms will be recognized as democratically-elected politicians and not terrorists by Mr. Erdoğan when they comfortably win seats in Southeast Turkey.

What, then, makes the Israeli government a “terrorist state” in the eyes of Mr. Erdoğan? Did the Israeli government seize power by force? Was it not “democratically elected?”

In the meantime, what did the head of the “humanitarian aid organization” that spearheaded the Gaza flotilla tell a crowd that looked more like an army of jihadists than volunteers? Listen to Bülent Yıldırım, “the ace” humanitarian activist:

“Last night [the night of the Israeli raid on the flotilla] everything in the world changed, and everything is progressing toward Islam. Anyone who does not stand alongside Palestine – his throne will be toppled!”

See, typical humanitarian aid activist language. I am sure the believers of the bridge tale will also believe Mr. Yıldırım is the Muslim reincarnation of Mother Teresa.

Read the whole thing.

(h/t DM)

"The One About Hamas" (video)

Here is satire that contains more truth than a thousand sober op-eds

From No Laughing Matter:

(h/t Daled Amos and some commenter I can no longer find.)

Two of the dead "humanitarians" were in the Khaybar rally

Suzanne noticed, and I agree, that two of the people who were killed on the Mavi Marmara have a strong resemblance to the two people to Osama Qashoo's left on the video of the pre-flotilla, anti-Jewish "Khaybar" rally. One is Ali Haydar Bengi and the other is Cengiz Songur.

They were sitting in a semi-circle, with Qashoo in the middle:

At the 0:30 point, we see two people who strongly resemble two of the dead:

But I'm sure that they were very "humanitarian" as they called for the massacre of Jews.

HuffPo logic: "People who support Israel are anti-semites"

Sam Sedaei, a self-proclaimed "International Civil Resistance Trainer," has written a nonsensical article for the Huffington Post that asserts that people who support Israel are anti-semites.

Say what?

Israel was established following World War II and the wake of horrific crimes against the Jews by the Nazis and other axis powers. It was created as a Jewish state based on the rationale on the part of advocates of modern Zionism that historically, Jewish people have always been the subject of persecution, and hence, they can never be safe anywhere else but in a Jewish homeland.

The same people who are vigorous supporters of Zionism are also the ones who speak out fiercely against any action that implies a deep-seated hostility toward Jews. But if one thinks about it, this is counter-intuitive. The very reason why Israel is a Jewish state--a theocracy, like Iran, rather than a melting pot democracy like the United States, or Turkey--is because Zionism itself is based on the notion that Jewish people are different in some sense than non-Jews. Why else would one believe that Jews and only Jews can never be safe anywhere in the world and must have their own homeland? Ins't [sic] one really then arguing that there is something that is different about Jews, which makes them subjects to persecution?

How much stupidity can fit in such a small space?

First of all, Israel is no theocracy. It is not governed by Jewish religious law. The fact that Sedaei makes this assertion as fact shows his ignorance right off the bat.

Secondly, this is a neat inversion of truth. If Jews have been persecuted by others throughout history (undeniable fact) and if Jews want to stop that from happening (undeniable fact) then the Jews must think they are special and different by wanting some measure of self-determination to protect themselves from being slaughtered (ridiculous.) No, Sam, it is the people who hate the Jews who are saying that Jews are different.

Thirdly, the implication that Zionism says that "Jews and only Jews" must have their own homeland is a straw man. Why would Zionism be against a homeland for Kurds, Armenians, Tibetans or any other persecuted, cohesive group?

And here is the second question: Those who support Israel as a Jewish state are also the most vocal in their condemnation of anti-Semitism. But once again, those two are also contradictory concepts. How can one at once argue that there should be no anti-Semitism and then claim that anti-Semitism is the reason why Israel should forever be a Jewish State? How can one at once pretend to fight anti-Semitism with the implied belief that it can be eradicated and then support a state that was created with the justification that anti-Semitism can never be eradicated elsewhere in the world and accepts anti-Semitism as an ineffaceable human phenomenon?

Sedaei is saying that people who are working to eliminate bigotry in this world cannot do anything concrete to protect the people being persecuted - because any practical steps would imply that the bigotry will never be eliminated, which is in his twisted mind a contradiction.

The idea that one can try both to protect the persecuted from being slaughtered at the same time that one tries to convince the slaughterers to become nice, peaceful people is perfectly consistent, and not contradictory at all. It would be like saying that a school bully cannot be punished as well as given sensitivity training, because punishment implies that he cannot be changed while the training would.

Meanwhile, let the kids on the playground be terrorized.

I wonder - would Sedaei say that his exact same arguments would mean he is against Kurdish independence?After all, by the fact that they want their own country it implies that they think they are special, right? How déclassé.

He drives his non-point home by asking these supposedly pointed questions meant to uncover the huge hypocrisy of Zionists:

Nonetheless, the real questions are for those who accuse Helen Thomas of anti-Semitism. Do these individuals believe anti-Semitism can ever be eradicated?

Not in the foreseeable future.

If they do, how can they support Israel as a permanently Jewish state?

Because even if it does happen, it won't happen for a very long time.

And if they believe Jews must have special rights in the Jewish state, are they saying that Jews are inherently different in some way from non-Jews?

No, they are saying that Jews should enjoy the exact same rights as other nations do in their own respective countries.

Doesn't that make them the real anti-Semites?

No, but these questions make me wonder about other people.

Apparently, Sedaei thinks that people who have breast cancer should not get mastectomies, because that implies a belief that breast cancer can never be cured. It is therefore hypocritical to separate the cancer from the body rather than to work really, really hard to eradicate it.

Better to be "consistent" and let the cancer kill you, because only then would you have the respect of idiots like Sedaei.

The failure of the media to get the flotilla background right (Landes)

Richard Landes writes a devastating piece for Pajamas Media showing how media sloppiness ends up helping those who support terror.

It centers on a CNN interview with one of the "activists," Osama Qashoo:

As a flotilla of boats heads towards Gaza to break the blockade, CNN has anchor Rosemary Church perform an interview with a participant from one of the boats, “Free Gaza” activist Osama Qashoo. The report has so many flaws, it’s hard to list and analyze them all. (For the entire interview, click here.)

Let’s focus on the main flaws.

The Nature of the Flotilla

Eight hundred “peace activists” and 10,000 tons of supplies. We’ll return to the “peaceful” nature of the activists, but even on the matter of the supplies, she merely parrots the statistics proffered by the organizers. A little research suggests that they’ve been exaggerated by at least a factor of two, and now that the Israelis have unloaded it, I’m guessing closer to a factor of five or ten. As for the organizations involved, the monikers — humanitarian, human rights — are clearly what the groups themselves have to say about themselves, not what CNN, after researching and passing judgment, discovered.

Take, for example, the IHH. This is a group that even the Islamist government of Turkey found too radical for its taste, with ties to al-Qaeda and other organizations that target civilians (of all faiths) as a major tactic in their jihad. Second, it’s an unindicted co-conspirator to groups found guilty of helping plan terror attacks in the U.S. It’s fairly easy to find information on the web that makes it clear how inappropriate “humanitarian group” is for this organization.

Mind you, it’s not out of character for CNN anchors to characterize various organizations negatively for their audience if they don’t like them. Jim Clancy repeatedly refers to AIPAC as the “right-wing, pro-Israel lobby.”

Having misstated the context dramatically, Church then interviews Qashoo. This occupies over six minutes of an eight-minute piece. Not only does Church let Osama carry on at length, she only challenges him with canned Israeli responses.

Apparently the claim that Israelis are acting like Nazis and Gaza is a concentration camp is not a problem for Rosemary.

So rather than challenge his comparison of Israel to the Nazis and Gaza to a concentration camp, Rosemary reads him Mark Regev’s comment that Gaza is not in a state of humanitarian crisis and asks for his response — which essentially is a repeat of his previous remarks, with emphasis on “love for the whole world.”

By this point in time, the footage of the fellows on Qashoo’s boat singing a jihadi song — promising the Jews that Muhammad’s army was coming back to do to them what he did to the Jews of Khaybar (i.e., massacre the men and sell the women and children into slavery) — was released.

And if she, or anyone else at CNN, had done their homework and looked carefully, they would have seen Osama himself waving his fist with the rest of the peace-loving group.

In other words, Qashoo is a particularly unambiguous case of a demopath: someone who presents himself and his companions as pacifists and lovers of humanity even as he chants jihadi songs about wiping out whole populations. Even to Church he shows his hand, by claiming that nothing will stop them, and that they will treat the Israelis as pirates if they try. Demopathy is perhaps jihad’s greatest weapon, precisely because we are so receptive to claims of good will and peaceful intent. Identifying demopaths is one of the most pressing needs of the 21st century, and one of the reasons for that importance is that behind the demopathic façade that invokes human rights and respect for the Muslim minority lies another reality.

Read the whole thing.

The "humanitarian" with ties to Bin Laden (Zvi)

Zvi has put together a portfolio of one of the "humanitarians" aboard the Mavi Marmara, with some serious ties to terrorism:

One of the British participants on the Mavi Marmara included Abdullah Anas [1] (using his birth name, Boudjema Bounoua [2]) and his 19 year old son Muhammad.

Anas co-founded the Office of Services (Maktab al-Khidamat, or MAK), the precursor of al Qaeda, with his father and Osama bin Laden, whom he knew personally [4]. He also helped to start a group that sent jihadis to fight in Bosnia & Herzgovina [4]. He then ran an MAK branch that funded this activity. He sits on the Council in Exile of Algeria's FIS.[9]

Anas is the son-in-law of Sheikh Abdullah Yussuf Azzam, Osama bin Laden's mentor. Azzam co-founded MAK (see above) and helped to start Hamas [5]. Azzam adhered to the bloodiest end of Islamic extremism; his slogan was "Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, no dialogs."[6]. Aside from bin Laden, Azzam supervised the PhD thesis of Mullah Krekar (who later led the Kurdish terror group Ansar al-Islam)[6]. He believed in the "defense of Muslim lands"; not even a handspan of land that was ever controlled by Muslims must be allowed to remain in the hands of infidels. Unlike bin Laden, who had other priorities, Azzam wanted to focus on destroying Israel.

Azzam's daughter Sumayya (Anas' wife, Muhamad Bounoua's mother) is herself an extremist. She has expressed a willingness to sacrifice Anas and all of her 5 children for Allah. Anas brought his 19 year old son Muhammad on the Mavi Marmara. His 17 year old son Ahmed now wants to join the next convoy. Sumayya supports this, naturally, now that she sees what a wonderful career opportunity it represents: instant credentials in the jihad business.

This "peace activist" family reside in the UK, which granted them political asylum. I'm not sure if this happened as a result of Anas' participation in the FIS or whether it happened because Anas gave reports critical of bin Laden[7]. However, Anas is said to maintain close links with the Taliban and al Qaeda.[8]

Azzam was assassinated in Pakistan, though who killed him is a mystery. His death gave bin Laden control of MAK.[10]

Sources:
[1] http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=177457

[2] http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/001117.html

[3] http://www.speroforum.com/a/33949/ProPalestine-protesters-denounce-Israeli-raid
[4] http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=boudjemaa_bounoua_1

[5] http://slate.msn.com/id/2064385/

[6] http://www.pwhce.org/azzam.html

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Anas

[8] http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/11-us-involved-in-secret-talks-with-senior-taliban--il--06

[9] http://www.pbs.org/weta/crossroads/about/show_jihad_film.html

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Azzam

Arab article moans Turkish and Iranian co-opting of Arab causes

Abdel Bari Atwan, writing in Al Quds al-Arabi, says that the recent events on the flotilla as well as out of Iran show that the Arab world is impotent to do anything on its own, and that the Turks and Iranians are acting as more effective leaders of Arabs than the Arab countries themselves.

To be sure, he knows that these moves are political, as using the Arab street to accomplish your goals is an old and well-known tactic. Nevertheless, he notices - as do ordinary Arabs - that the people who are in the forefront of the Arab cause are non-Arabs.

And, by Arab cause, he means - the fight against Israel.

He compares the Arab world today to the Ottoman empire in its dying days during World War I, when it was divided and making deals with the West. Their desire to work with the US and Europe are an insult to Arabs who are brought up to hate the West and it leaves them vulnerable to these other Muslim nations to take the mantle of anti-Israelism from the Arabs.

Erdogan's apparent standing up to Israel is striking a chord in the Arab world, even though his country still has relations with Israel. Arabs, after decades of feeling impotent, are attracted to a leader who appears to hold to his convictions.

And, while the author doesn't say this, the only example he can find of a pan-Arab ideal is the pure hatred of a Jewish state.

Details of Israel's interrogation of Marmara passengers leak out

Israel's Intelligence and Terror Information Center, which has close ties to the IDF, has released a report that discusses in some detail the real story behind the Mavi Marmara, based on unreported IDF investigations in the days following its capture.

(Past experience has shown that the ITIC has been highly accurate. It is a far cry from Debka, for example, which has a more checkered track record.)

The upshot is that there was a core of about 40 IHH members who, with Turkish government support, unofficially took over the Mavi Marmara and planned the clashes with the IDF.

Their summary:

1. An initial analysis of statements taken from passengers aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara after it was towed to the port of Ashdod show that operatives belonging to the radical Islamic Turkish IHH1 led the violent confrontation with the IDF.

2. The statements confirmed that the violence met by the IDF soldiers was not spontaneous but rather an organized, premeditated action carried out by a hard core of 40 IHH operatives (among the 500 passengers). The operatives, who acted according to a clearly-defined internal hierarchy, boarded the ship in the port of Istanbul without undergoing a security inspection (as opposed to the other passengers, who boarded in Antalya after a full inspection).

3. The IHH operatives’ preparations included handing out walkie-talkies as they boarded the ship, taking over the upper deck, setting up a situation room for communications, and a briefing given to the operatives two hours before the confrontation by IHH head Bülent Yildirim, who was on board the ship and commanded his men. IHH operatives wore ceramic vests and gas masks, and were armed with large quantities of cold weapons which they had prepared from equipment found on board (knives, axes, metal cables, metal pipes used as clubs, wrenches, etc.). They were also equipped with box cutters which had been prepared on the upper deck in advance.

4. The passengers, including the IHH operatives, stated that there were close relations between the organization and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan and that the Turkish government was involved in preparations for the flotilla. The statements reinforce the original assassment that the objective of the flotilla was not merely to bring humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, but focused on provocation and a violent confrontation with Israel.

Interesting details:

* The Turkish prime minister Erdogan would not have been elected without the help of the IHH.

* " During the voyage a group of IHH operatives supervised the ship. IHH guards were posted in the passageways and did not permit passengers to reach the upper deck. They also limited the movements of the crew, who needed permission from the IHH men to go from one place to another."

* Eight of the nine killed were IHH operatives and volunteers (including an IHH journalist.)

There has been criticism in Turkey as well concerning the ties between Erdogan and the IHH.

As far as the accuracy of the passenger "eyewitness testimony," YNet reports on the firestorm in Egypt over an Egyptian passenger that detailed how the IHH took IDF soldiers captive:

A storm has been kicked up in Egyptian media after experiences on the flotilla are recounted. The version of events on the Gaza-bound flotilla as heard by an Egyptian member of parliament have evoked the ire of a number of state-run media outlets in the country because, they claim, the stories help Israeli PR efforts.

An Egyptian member of parliament from the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Beltagy, took part in the flotilla to the Gaza Strip that was commandeered by the Israeli Navy. After participating in the clashes on the deck of the Mavi Marmara, he was arrested by Israel and later released to Egypt.

On Tuesday of last week, he was interviewed on the "10 at Night" program on the Egyptian channel Dream. During the interview, he said that the flotilla participants overtook three Israeli commandos and snatched their weapons from them. This admission of employing force against IDF soldiers has evoked a media storm among Egyptian columnists, who claim this was a "public relations gift to Israel."

In other words, there is a usually unspoken rule in the Arab world not to say anything that could help Israel, especially if it is true. Pseudo-"peace activists" adopt the same rule as their hatred of Israel is what colors all of their actions, not their desire for helping Gazans.

The main factor that has helped Israel confirm its narrative has indeed been Muslims whose cultural desire to show their manliness in resisting the IDF outweighed their realization that this very testimony of supposed IDF weakness is really a clear demonstration of initial IDF restraint. The Free Gaza folks wouldn't fall into that trap because their own fake public narrative is that they are against all forms of violence - but Arabs and Turks have cultures that celebrate militancy and abhor any appearance of weakness, ironically making their testimonies more accurate.

(Update: deleted a sentence - I misunderstood a part of the report.)