It ends up the event planned for tomorrow night at NYU featuring Israeli Navy Seal "Amir" has been canceled "amid serious safely and security concerns." Here is the text of the email that was sent out to registrants:
Dear Attendees,
Sadly, amid serious safety and security issues, Birthright Israel Next and other sponsors are being forced to cancel tomorrow night’s event at the Silver Center. I am deeply sorry. Gesher truly apologizes for this inconvenience, but looks forward to providing great opportunities throughout the course of the rest of the semester.
Best,
Nicole
Nicole Pines Lieberman
Senior Associate for Core Services
The Bronfman Center for Jewish Student Life at NYU
A friend writes:
Seems like the pro-Israel establishment in the US (Organizations supporting Israel Peace Week include AIPAC, ADL and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs) is completely losing its bearings and becoming even more Orwellian. How could they not understand that featuring a soldier involved in an international scandal would be controversial? Even people in the US can see that this event had nothing to do with educating "about the steps Israel continually takes towards peace."
Was this the guy who killed a US citizen, come to brag about how Obama also thinks it is okay to assassinate US citizens, as long as they’re Muslim?
That’s, of course, a fabrication.
Reading between the lines it’s apparent that the event was canceled because the group feared it would generate negative publicity for Israel. I can just imagine the protesters outside handing out copies of the UN report and chanting “NYU supports criminals”.
Citing “Security” is a good way of folding their Hasbara kiosk while also implying that “radical Islamists” in the US are threatening to attack innocent Jews and Israelis. Peter King must be happy.
Exactly my thoughts, Avi.
“Reading between the lines it’s apparent that the event was canceled because the group feared it would generate negative publicity for Israel.”
Exactly how are you concluding this?
Hophmi, he said reading between the lines.
But nice attempt and no follow up. I am
sure you were waiting to digest some of the
Hasbara offered by the IDF tonight.
Let me ask you though, you’re aware that
the Israel Gov’t is in bad shape right now
in their global PR campaign. Do you think they
would allow this IDF soldier to come without
being coached in advance? What if the soldier
goes off on a tangent, and explains to the audience
that he has feelings of wrongdoing and admits that
their were mistakes and they fired
at harmless civilians in haste?
Hophmi, he said reading between the lines.
But nice attempt and no follow up. I am
sure you were waiting to digest some of the
Hasbara offered by the IDF tonight.”
Yes, when someone says “I’m reading between the lines” there is usually something in the lines to support that reading.
Again, I’m not sure why it’s so hard for Phil and Adam to DO THEIR JOB and ask what happened instead of speculating.
“Let me ask you though, you’re aware that
the Israel Gov’t is in bad shape right now
in their global PR campaign. Do you think they
would allow this IDF soldier to come without
being coached in advance? What if the soldier
goes off on a tangent, and explains to the audience
that he has feelings of wrongdoing and admits that
their were mistakes and they fired
at harmless civilians in haste?”
Yes, and? What is your point? Again, I’m interested in something other than baseless speculation.
baseless speculation? that israel runs pr campaigns and lies w/impunity?
lol
“baseless speculation? that israel runs pr campaigns and lies w/impunity?”
Baseless speculation as to why it was cancelled. C’mon.
“Baseless speculation as to why it was cancelled. C’mon.”
All of it is baseless. Maybe there were threats and maybe there weren’t. The announcement itself is evidence of nothing.
Hophmi,
I think my main point was to ask you if you believe that the IDF soldier would have been coached prior to this canceled event, by an Israeli government official.
“I think my main point was to ask you if you believe that the IDF soldier would have been coached prior to this canceled event, by an Israeli government official.”
Hard to say. I’m sure he talked with superiors in the Army, but I would guess that’s a pretty standard thing for any soldier in any army who talks about a specific operation.
I don’t think there’s a whole lot of controversy left, personally. What I find interesting is how many points of agreement there are between the account in the Turkel report and the UNHRC report. They differ on context. The Turkel has much, much more in the way of eyewitness testimony, and the testimonies gel with one another as far as I can see. It is clear that there were a number of IHH people who were armed with weapons on the ship. It is clear that the soldiers were not expecting this. And it is clear that soldiers were stabbed and reason to fear for their lives.
Hophmi,
You can’t be allowed to make such false statements without being challenged. I know for a fact there were no weapons on board the MAVI MARMARA or any other boats of the flotilla. Everyone on board was committed to unarmed non-violence. Nobody would be allowed to board any of the flotilla boats without signing a commitment to non-violence. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I have sailed to Gaza and I know the rules. I was part of the flotilla. I too was sworn to non-violence, and if my vessel had been swarmed and attacked by armed commandoes I hope that I would have done what all of us non-violent peace activists do: refuse to resist brutality against us. But had I watched other passengers being shot, beaten and killed, and if I saw a piece of loose hardware on the boat, I fear I might have picked it up and tried to protect myself or others. There were no guns on the flotilla boats. Yes, there were knives. There were also forks and spoons… there were hundreds to people to be fed. It is insulting that after the wanton slaughter of nine unarmed passengers, and serious injury to dozens more, Israel and people like you continue to suggest they were armed. The attack was unprovoked, in international waters where Israeli gunboats and vessels of war had no right to be. Israel got away with yet another massacre; please don’t embarrass yourself by claiming otherwise.
Great post Maria
That’s funny, Donald. No really.
If there were actual threats, we’d have heard about them. I thought you understood how the system works by now.
Does everything have to be spelled out for you to believe it? Don’t governments’ patterns of behavior mean anything? Does Newspeak not exist?
I wish Shmuel were here to explain how the office of the Israeli army’s spokesperson operates.
“I know for a fact there were no weapons on board the MAVI MARMARA or any other boats of the flotilla. ”
So you deny anyone had a club or chain, and contradict both reports?
“Everyone on board was committed to unarmed non-violence. Nobody would be allowed to board any of the flotilla boats without signing a commitment to non-violence.”
HAHAHAHAHA. So your evidence is that they signed a piece of paper?
“The attack was unprovoked, in international waters where Israeli gunboats and vessels of war had no right to be. Israel got away with yet another massacre; please don’t embarrass yourself by claiming otherwise.”
I invite you to read the report, which suggests that the IHH members decided to resists violently – before any Israeli boarded their ship. Seems to me all of you will defend everything these people did – and endanger other humanitarian activists in the process.
Oh well, pro-Palestinian activists have been doing this for years, hijacking everything from humanitarian activism to anti-racism conferences to serve their personal agenda.
hophmi March 11, 2011 at 12:42 am
Point out the weapons ..
link to talknic.files.wordpress.com
Remember, on a ship,
A fisherman’s knife is a tool.
A fire axe is admittedly a weapon. (for fighting fires)
Various spare handles are for repairing various tools.
A ships workshop has steel bars and pipes and flats and plates for fixing ships.
Rope is a standard feature on most ships.
Cutlery is for preparing and eating food.
A ceremonial dagger is for ceremonies, usually incapable of cutting anything more than the air.
There was NO THING found that is actually classified as a weapon.
Finally these nasty terroristas ….why did they not kill the innocent IDF grunts. Instead, they TREATED their wounds.
Mine too. Wonder who stepped up to the plate and would have been inside to confront this soldier with questions based on facts? Wonder if Furkan Dogan’s father was in the neighborhood?
Bring him on, as far as I’m concerned.
For all of you who choose to complain to Google about their search results getting hacked, here’s the URL that cuts to the chase:
link to google.com
It will require a mondoweiss.net search beforehand. Save that URL to insert on google’s anti-malware thingey.
Google also asks for a text file of the html page of that URL and tells you how to do it.
It’s a rigamarole, but since we can’t yell ANONYMOUS, SAVE US! this is the next best thing.
I followed through on the redirect address under Google Safe Browsing. It’s reporting that the redirect site has hosted other suspicious activity. Some of the addresses have .lv in their domain as well as eur. If that’s meant to be Las Vegas, then that raises a red flag immediately. Vegas is the Mossad’s home away from home, and the site of Birthright Israel’s creator and benefactor, Sheldon Adelson.
thanks mrw, I tend to be a little paranoid in these matters, but have to admit that I really do not understand how it all works. So are you saying that the disruption is somewhere between the url and the google search engine?
This particular Google alert tends to be caused by a piece of malware that inserts itself into a javascript and produces an iframe that links to the “imgeshacks.org” site. If the admins have checked their JS and it’s clean they should submit ASAP to Google, and get mondoweiss.net off of the Chrome blocking list!
Lahdidah, yes, that’s what I read too–that Mondoweiss admin must
check to see if this web site is clean, and if so, they need to show ASAP to Google to stop this problem. I emailed them (& Phil too) but never got a response and they have not responded here either. It would be nice if they would since if more folks than I are getting malware notice popups when they arrive at Mondoweiss.net this can scare off traffic.
I downloaded a malware detector off the Mac site (Clam something or other) but I didn’t install it. I did make sure I got the lastest updates from Mac. This didn’t cure the problem. I just cleaned my browser (Safari) cache and the result currently is this apparently did as I did not get the malware notice when going to Mondoweiss or any any article within it. I’m ignorant in this area so I will greatly appreciate any further information from anyone here. I read that
my Macbook won’t allow any downloads without asking me first, so I shouldn’t worry. OTHA, I read that there is one malware/virus that does find a way to corrupt my Safari browser and the Mac security team had decided not to write a program to do just that. Go figure.
MRW,
The domain “.lv” is the designation for sites originating in Latvia – if it is the final 2 letters in the web address. Should it appear anywhere else in the web address, it could be anything from Las Vegas to Louis Vitton.
I hope that helps.
“Serious safety and security concerns,” eh?
Makes sense to me considering that, if any Palestinians, Lebanese, Turks, or Turkish-Americans happened to show up to the event, the Israeli Navy Seal “Amir” may well have just murdered them in cold blood and then gone shopping with their stolen credit cards.
I, for one, am relieved to hear that Birthright Israel Next has made such a courageous and conscientious decision on behalf of all the innocent people who would have certainly been shot numerous times in the head from above by the keynote speaker simply for attending the event.
Kudos.
Something else had to be up. Really wonder about who was going to attend and confront this soldiers with legitimate questions based on the facts? You know this is why it was shut down. Anyone digging into the facts? Contacts with students on campus. Bet Max is asking these questions?
Security concerns? Because the guy won’t be able to carry his gun and shoot anyone who looks his way with crossed eyes?
I thin Avi has a point. This could easily have turned out to be a PR nightmare if a former US marine, Anne Wright, and Heidi Epstein had tuned up to spoil the party.
Yes, Shingo, this seems likely–why else would they cancel the IDF seal?
Of course they would cite security. How else to escape from their untenable situation. The fact is that this seal was a crew member on a vessel that engaged in piracy in international waters. That is a violation of law in the US and many European countries. He could be arrested as soon as he set foot in the US. The law against piracy is well established and is recognized in the US.
Piracy violations can be litigated in tort law, so even if the US justice department decided not to act, private citizens or even foreign powers can bring cases in US courts. The Israelis know this and someone there realized that it would be foolish to send this pirate here to the US.
Executions
righto. all the sputtering on about letting a witness to these historic events tell his story is idiotic. the ‘seal’ would not likely have said a damn thing regarding the facts of the day’s events for fear of prosecution, or simply further embarrassing israel, and presumably somebody in the legal department for the embassy or elsewhere finally pulled their head out of their ass and wised up to the significant potential negative downside to the talk. he was going to be there to let the birthrighters be in the presence of a real killer. he shot muslims for israel. what a hero.
I’d love for them to talk about what these concerns are. I believe the ambiguity serves their purposes well, as it could imply “that “radical Islamists” in the US are threatening to attack innocent Jews and Israelis” as Avi said. If the threats are terrorist in nature, something I find hard to believe, then I’d be a bit disappointed. That’s not how we should be winning. If, on the other hand, the threats came in the form of possible attempts to prosecute this soldier, that’s fantastic. “Lawfare” at its finest.
I’m sure one of the murder apologists here is going to bring up the Seattle bus incident as some sort of parallel, implicating “hypocrisy” on our part. I really hope they’re smart enough to see the difference.
Radical antizionists with Twitter accounts
Darn I was so looking forward to the side show!!
Chalk up a victory for threats and censorship, a defeat for free speech.
I don’t see it that way, jon. What was threatened? A protest? Public exposure of the shame of the event? Isn’t protest free speech? The organizers decided either that it was bad publicity after all, or the speaker’s “safety and security” might be imperiled by service of legal papers. By contrast, the Pro-Israel crowd tries to actually suppress speech by pressuring hosts who have invited adversarial speakers to disinvite them. The US government does that by refusing or delaying issuance of visas to “controversial” speakers. What you are complaining about is the right of people to protest an event they find objectionable.
I’m not even certain that those who planned to protest are happy about the cancellation. Maybe some were intending to attend and challenge the speaker. Maybe they were hoping to educate attendees or passersby about the Mavi Marmara assault. Maybe they were unconcerned that the Navy seal would be convincing only to those who already were predisposed to be convinced. Taxi’s comment above seems to be sarcastic, but maybe she was half serious.
David Samel is right, as usual.
agree with David. NYU pulled back for they knew this could be a PR mess. An IDF soldier who could have potentially killed an American or Turk aboard a food delivery ship is going to come to their campus and explain his side of the story?
If I were a parent thinking of sending my kid to NYU, I would question their policy on this one.
Chalk up a victory against a man telling his tale of how he participated in the murder of unarmed activists on the open sea. Murderers should be in jail, not justifying their crimes to a large group of people – other than a jury.
This would have been unthinkable 5 years ago. Things are really beginning to move
Imagine the power of a little old lady like Hedy Epstein who just speaks common sense and stands up for decency.
Actually, five years ago, a violent crowd was assaulting Jews who went to see Bibi Netanyahu at Concordia University.
links? facts?
Hophmi when I google your claim this is what comes up. I do not know anything about the “American thinker” but if what is written in this piece is extremely disturbing. But when it comes to Daniel Pipes there should definitely be questions around his claims.
link to americanthinker.com
More on Netanyahu speech being canceled not sure about the sources
link to google.com
Here’s an account from your side:
link to fromoccupiedpalestine.org
The article uses similar reasoning to that found here justifying the obstruction of Netanyahu’s speech and notes that it was, in fact, the third time Netanyahu had been kept from speaking.
This was eight years ago, by the way, not five.
tons and tons of hate
that’s some mighty powerful testimony.
little defenseless Jews, all we wanted to do was listen to the former PM speak…
impressive propaganda
Hophmi, stop lying. Where does it say ‘assaulting Jews’ ANYWHERE?
War criminals shouldn’t be allowed to speak.
Stop drawing parallels between your side and the Palestinians. There is no parity between occupier and occupied. No parity between colonizer and colonized.
Here are a couple of eyewitness accounts:
link to aish.com
yes, hophmi, those are some objective reports from the year 5771. i mean the poor things were exposed to people wearing the keffiyah. woe to them. according to them any objection to netanyahu’s appearance is further proof that the whole world wants to murder ‘the jews’ and that 2002 is 1939.
hmm, one commenter calls for photos, videos. A sensible request in light of the widespread use of camera phones.
that was 2002 in Canada. Nearly ten years ago
and 1 year after 9/11.(Not 5 years ago, as you stated.)
Please don’t fabricate the timeline.
Poor hophmi and the wider Zionist cabal . The internet never forgets and it’s always available at the push of a button.
Zionism wasn’t designed for now.
“that was 2002 in Canada. Nearly ten years ago
and 1 year after 9/11.(Not 5 years ago, as you stated.)
Please don’t fabricate the timeline.”
Yeah, once again: A. I acknowledged already that it was more than 5 years ago, and B: the point of my posting the story was to show that in fact, pro-Israel speakers have been stifled a number of times, in response to someone who said that five years ago, shutting down an IDF soldier would have been unthinkable.
Please get it straight before you try to score baby points.
They are eyewitness reports. They were there. You were not. Do you have personal knowledge that would give you credibility to question their eyewitness experiences?
You said “assaulted.” Not “stifled.” From the account you link to, the only account of assault was on the part of the police.
Did you not read the part where the eyewitness said she was scared for her life?
The “security” excuse worked with the Seattle transit ads. Now here. It looks like this is a new theme to deflect from unsupportable contentions/embarrassing info, to blame.
On the positive side, I don’t recall the need to cancel much in the past. Even a couple of years ago, this event would have gone on as scheduled. The balance in the info wars is shifting.
good point.
Wonder if anyone can verify the reasons? Phone calls, what kind of threats?
You know this would have brought more attention to the UN report about what really took place. The execution of the 9 human rights activist
“The execution of the 9
human rightspolitical activists” according to the UNHRC report.What a load of nonsense. While the aid flotilla was political (how could it not be?), the UNHRC report specifically noted that “…the flotilla constituted a serious attempt to bring essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza…”
Unfortunately, standing up for human rights has become “political” these days.
I note the implied ranking of human beings in your post, hophmi. Apparently you consider it a lesser offense to kill “political activists” than “human rights activists”, unless of course its some country we officially don’t like that is doing the killing.
Give a hungry man a fish and you are a human rights advocate. Try to end the blockade so the hungry man can fish for himself, and you’re a “political activist”.
“I note the implied ranking of human beings in your post, hophmi. Apparently you consider it a lesser offense to kill “political activists” than “human rights activists”, unless of course its some country we officially don’t like that is doing the killing.”
Well no, of course not. But violent political activists who are trying to beat you to death, yeah, I am OK with killing them.
Oh, good. Executing political activists is right up the Israeli line. No problem.
But violent political activists who are trying to beat you to death, yeah, I am OK with killing them.
I would think the same approval would come with “violent humaitarian activists” trying to beat you to death. So why did you consider it important to differentiate between the two? The important factors here would be “violent” and “trying to beat you to death”, not whether or not they were “political activists” or “humanitarians” or “IDF soldiers” for that matter.
So would you be “OK” with political activists killing IDF soldiers if the soldiers were trying to kill them or their compatriots? Or are IDF soldiers a rank above humanitarians and political activists on that human worth scale of yours?
“Or are IDF soldiers a rank above humanitarians and political activists on that human worth scale of yours?”
Well, that’s kind of obvious, isn’t it? Any Palestinian who so much as throws a rock at an Israeli soldier is fair game to be shot, and any person who resists armed Israeli soldiers who board a ship on the high seas deserves to be killed. Any violence directed at any Israeli under any circumstances is an act of terrorist aggression and calls for a lethal response. It doesn’t matter who “started it”. Illegitimate violence begins by definition when it is used against an Israeli. These are all in the nature of self-evident truths.
Stated in the name of democracy.
Lets NOT hear others’ perspective than our own. There is no other possible “truth” than what we tell ourselves.
>> Stated in the name of democracy.
>> Lets NOT hear others’ perspective than our own. There is no other possible “truth” than what we tell ourselves.
You stand up for “freedom” in this thread and in a related thread (“NYU students feature Israeli soldier who attacked Mavi Marmara during ‘Israel Peace Week’”). But in this thread (which has 230 comments in it)…
NY’s LGBT center cancels pro-Palestinian event after donor/porn-merchant says it’s ‘anti-Semitic’
…not a peep – not a single post – from you about freedom, about the right to hear, about “other possible truths”.
Your hypocrisy shines through once again, you ol’ “Jewish state” Zio-supremacist.
Richard, in a democracy, even a liberal one (and aren’t you a liberal?), people are allowed to organise dissent against things they disagree with. This is because civil disobedience has long been is a central part of liberal democratic values since the 17th/18th century.
The protest called in reponse to this meeting was in the tradition of civil disobedience. It did not call for the cancellation of the meeting. Instead, it called for a protest to be held OUTSIDE the building where the meeting was to be held to voice non-violent dissent at the invitation of a “navy seal” who took part in the massacre of 9 innocent people on the Mavi Marmara.
And if you want to state things in the “name of democracy”, how about stating this fact – that the speaker at this meeting participated in, in the most brutal way possible, the violation of democratic rights and freedom of speech of 9 innocent people by murdering them in the middle of the night (or did you conveniently forget that?)
The only people who stopped this “navy seal” being heard were the organisers of the meeting, who made the CHOICE themselves to cancel the meeting. This choice was their choice, so stop playing the typical Zionist victim by trying to shift the blame onto the protesters who acted well within the liberal democratic framework developed over the last 400 or so years.
Red, I am fairly sure that it was not simply the threat of counterprotest that led to the cancellation. Events on the conflict are often protested. It would have been nothing new.
Red,
Again, the right to free speech is also the right to hear.
That you have already formed the conclusion of massacre without hearing, is not a good sign.
I’ve seen too much recent organized harrassment for my liking among BDS advocates and others. It is a DIFFERENT assertion to defend free speech, and to defend the prohibition of free speech.
you have already formed the conclusion of massacre without hearing, is not a good sign.
you saw the video of the soldier standing over a body and shooting at point blank range? you heard of the autopsy reports of corpses with shots to the head at point blank range? it was a massacre.
“you saw the video of the soldier standing over a body and shooting at point blank range? you heard of the autopsy reports of corpses with shots to the head at point blank range? it was a massacre.”
I read the UNHRC report. I did not see the word massacre used. I believe the best response to speech is more speech. You’ve lost your right to confront him just as much as I lost mine to hear him.
Witty, you are a hypocrite and a proponent of democracy for Jews and second-class citizenship for non-Jews.
bingo.. that would go for hophmi too.
By the way hophmi what would you call blowing bullets into someone who was holding a camera’s head at close range? A picnic?
The right to free speech also applied to the people on the Mavi Marmara, you know.
“The right to free speech also applied to the people on the Mavi Marmara, you know.”
But not the right to break blockades nor the right to run a political campaign under the guise of running a humanitarian campaign.
So, hophmi, you think the Nazis were correct to kill anyone who tried to smuggle food into the Warsaw Ghetto, because it was a political rather than a humanitarian act?
Does Israel have the right to ‘put Gazans on a diet’?
I would say no, and they should be allowed to have
things like lentils and fresh salmon be imported.
Israel doesn’t have this right to take that away and
that’s what the Turkish flotilla was correcting.
“I read the UNHRC report. I did not see the word massacre used”
No, the report did use the word “massacre,” but it did state:
“Massacre” can be defined as “the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings.” So while the word wasn’t used, the report clearly described a massacre.
“But not the right to break blockades nor the right to run a political campaign under the guise of running a humanitarian campaign.”
Wrong. As noted by the UNHRC report you have repeatedly referenced:
““Massacre” can be defined as “the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings.” So while the word wasn’t used, the report clearly described a massacre.”
OK. Fair point. Just remember that the soldiers who were accused of perpetrating the Boston Massacre were acquitted.
““But not the right to break blockades nor the right to run a political campaign under the guise of running a humanitarian campaign.”
Wrong. As noted by the UNHRC report you have repeatedly referenced:”
And as the report said, this was not a humanitarian mission. Finding a humanitarian need exists is not the same as finding a mission is humanitarian in nature.
“Just remember that the soldiers who were accused of perpetrating the Boston Massacre were acquitted.”
When the Israelis turn themselves over to Palestinan civilian authorities for trial, as the British did in Boston, trust me, I’ll remember.
“And as the report said, this was not a humanitarian mission. ”
No, it did not say it was not a humanitarian mission. It said it was primarily political, but that “…the flotilla constituted a serious attempt to bring essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza…” If it was a serious attempt to bring humanitarian supplies to the Gazans, it was a humanitarian mission, even if it was something else, as well.
“So, hophmi, you think the Nazis were correct to kill anyone who tried to smuggle food into the Warsaw Ghetto, because it was a political rather than a humanitarian act?”
HOW DARE YOU MAKE SUCH A COMPARISON? His friend’s grandmother was SURVIVOR of the horrors and a proud, strong woman who is now pro-Israel. YOU HAVE NO IDEA OF THE SUFFERING AND TORMENT YOU ARE CAUSING HIM! This is a trans-generational problem, it affects everyone.
link to ynetnews.com
These people are scarred, you have no dignity.
And as the report said, this was not a humanitarian mission. Finding a humanitarian need exists is not the same as finding a mission is humanitarian in nature.
FROM THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the UNHCR report:
link to www2.ohchr.org
Bolding and capitalization are mine, to help those with poor reading skills.
Awaiting acknowledgment and correction from Hophmi for incorrectly stating the conclusions of the UNHCR report.
The primary objective was political, not humanitarian.
80. The Mission notes a certain tension between the political objectives of the flotilla
and its humanitarian objectives. This comes to light the moment that the Government of
Israel made offers to allow the humanitarian aid to be delivered via Israeli ports but under
the supervision of a neutral organization. The Mission also notes that the Gaza Strip does
not possess a deep sea port designed to receive the kind of cargo vessels included in the
flotilla, raising practical logistical questions about the plan to deliver large quantities of aid
by the route chosen. Whilst the Mission is satisfied that the flotilla constituted a serious
attempt to bring essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza, it seems clear that the primary
objective was political, as indeed demonstrated by the decision of those on board the
Rachel Corrie to reject a Government of Ireland-sponsored proposal that the cargo in that
ship to be allowed through Ashdod intact.
But not the right to break blockades nor the right to run a political campaign under the guise of running a humanitarian campaign.
They had every right to do so. Such activity is entirely legitimate, and killing people for engaging in it is murder.
“They had every right to do so. Such activity is entirely legitimate, and killing people for engaging in it is murder.”
I’m not at all sure that they had a right to run a blockade, legal or illegal. This is why the point about humanitarian versus political is important.
And I once again reject completely this idea that they were killed because of what they were doing. They were killed because they tried to kill the soldiers. None of the other boats did this, and no one else was killed. Therefore, you cannot say that the mission was the reason people on this particular boat were killed.
Hophmi, your original statement was:
“And as the report said, this was not a humanitarian mission.”
This is not borne out by either the statement I quoted or the statement you quoted from the report. The report does in fact say that it WAS a humanitarian mission. The report also says that the Israeli blockade was ILLEGAL under international law, which is the only law that applies in international waters, where the Mavi Marmara was attacked. You keep misstating what the UNHCR report actually says.
From your quote:” Whilst the Mission is satisfied that the flotilla constituted a serious attempt to bring essential humanitarian supplies into Gaza…”
The report may speculate on the “political” motives of the flotilla, but it does not say that the flotilla was not on a humanitarian mission.
On a personal note, one of the points of disagreement I have with the UNHCR was their statement that refusing to allow the Israeli’s to offload the humanitarian supplies in Ashdod constituted a political act on the part of the flotilla. It makes no humanitarian sense to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza to the very people who are prohibiting that aid from entering Gaza.
“They were killed because they tried to kill the soldiers.”
Why had they confiscated the video footage then?
You’re only speculating on what a foreign military force
did in this situation.
They were killed because they tried to kill the soldiers.
Wild speculation on your part. And here you are criticizing others for speculating. The autopsies and eyewitness reports do not support your speculations, nor does the fact that the Israeli government refused to to release any medical reports on the extent of injuries to the soldiers, or any confiscated photo and video evidence.
OK, it was a humanitarian mission by virtue of the fact that it was carrying humanitarian aid, even though Gaza did not have a port with the ability to accept a lot of it, and even though the flotilla organizers admitted that the primary objective was political. I’ll grant you that technical point. I’ll revise and say that when the IHH members began trying to beat Israeli soldiers to death, it became a violent humanitarian mission whose primary purpose was political in nature.
“The report also says that the Israeli blockade was ILLEGAL under international law, which is the only law that applies in international waters, where the Mavi Marmara was attacked. ”
It does say all that. I disagree with their conclusions. It also says that the fact that IHH participants fashions weapons proves there were no weapons on the boat before that, which is a little silly.
“On a personal note, one of the points of disagreement I have with the UNHCR was their statement that refusing to allow the Israeli’s to offload the humanitarian supplies in Ashdod constituted a political act on the part of the flotilla. It makes no humanitarian sense to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza to the very people who are prohibiting that aid from entering Gaza.”
It wasn’t getting in any other way, since, as the report also pointed out, Gaza did not have a port with the ability to accept a lot of the humanitarian aid.
Again, it is no secret that the primary objective of the flotilla was to break the blockade. The report strongly suggests that humanitarian activists delivering aid should stick to getting the aid in as their first priority. The reasons for this should be easy to understand.
“Why had they confiscated the video footage then?
You’re only speculating on what a foreign military force
did in this situation.”
Perhaps because they wanted to use it for their own investigation. The Turkel Commission seems to have had access to it.
“Wild speculation on your part. And here you are criticizing others for speculating. The autopsies and eyewitness reports do not support your speculations, nor does the fact that the Israeli government refused to to release any medical reports on the extent of injuries to the soldiers, or any confiscated photo and video evidence.”
Not really. It’s simple logic. Only one boat had violent demonstrators who tried to kill the soldiers with sticks and chains. Both reports say soldiers were severely injured by these weapons. This is the only boat where people were killed. If you say that these people were killed because of their cause, why, then, was no one on any other boat killed? They were all part of the same cause.
Seeing as the blockade is illegal, yes, they do that the right to break it.
Bullseye mymarkx.
False. The mission aimed to deliver humanitarian aid, hence it was a humanitarian mission.
How do you figure that?
No they defended themselves with sticks and chains against pirates carrying guns.
That’s what happens when you commit acts of piracy.
Shingo, the mission was to create publicity toward ending the blockade.
It was somewhat successful in that.
If the mission was to deliver supplies, then it was a rousing success. The supplies got through!
“The primary objective was political, not humanitarian.”
I know, I already noted as much. What you fail to accept is that, regardless of which was primary, it was both. So you cannot say that it was no a humanitarian mission. It was.
“I’m not at all sure that they had a right to run a blockade, legal or illegal. This is why the point about humanitarian versus political is important. ”
If the blockade is illegal (as this was), it can’t be illegal to “run” it because the default under international law is free passage. If a blockade is illegal, it simply means that it is criminal to prevent free passage. Here, the flotilla attempted to exercise its right of free passage and was illegally stopped.
“And I once again reject completely this idea that they were killed because of what they were doing. They were killed because they tried to kill the soldiers.”
The Israelis engaged in an illegal act of piracy and, as such, any of the passengers had the right to defend their ship. Or is the right of self-defense only something that you believe Jews are entitled to?
“Not really. It’s simple logic. Only one boat had violent demonstrators who tried to kill the soldiers with sticks and chains. Both reports say soldiers were severely injured by these weapons. This is the only boat where people were killed. If you say that these people were killed because of their cause, why, then, was no one on any other boat killed? They were all part of the same cause.”
This is disingenuous. It’s like saying that an example of police brutality is “explained” by the fact that the victim was violent. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn’t–also, even if a person is violent it doesn’t justify mayhem by the police. You are assuming way too much. I just read portions of the UN report that tree linked to and in their description the Israelis were lobbing smoke grenades and firing nonlethal ammunition from boats before they came on board. They allegedly fired live rounds too before they came on board. They shot one guy between the eyes when he held a camera. They seem to have fired at people who were on the ground.
You can reject some or all of this if you choose, but you have no basis for making a blanket statement that all the deaths occurred because the Israelis were fighting for their lives. Perhaps some deaths or injuries were inflicted by some Israelis in self-defense , but it’s a long jump from that claim (true or false) to the claim that all the casualties on the boat were inflicted by Israelis in legitimate self-defense. That’s quite apart from the issue of whether the Israelis have any right to stop the boats or expect people to be nonviolent when they step onboard.
“when the IHH members began trying to beat Israeli soldiers to death,”
What the hell are you talking about?? They were defending their ship from illegal invaders. Had these Israeli simply thrown down their weapons, put thier hands behind their heads and fallen to their knees, nothing would have happened to them.
“The report strongly suggests that humanitarian activists delivering aid should stick to getting the aid in as their first priority.”
No, the report strongly suggests that the bloody Israelis should stop murdering people.
“It wasn’t getting in any other way, since, as the report also pointed out, Gaza did not have a port with the ability to accept a lot of the humanitarian aid.”
The report also noted witness testimony that “IHH workers already in Gaza were preparing cranes to off-load the cargo into smaller boats. Another witness confirmed this plan and said that the Eleftheri Mesogios itself had a crane.”
So it is simply false to say that “it wasn’t getting there any other way.” If the criminal Zionist pirates didn’t interecept, the ships would have been offloaded.
Richard – again – the only people who stopped this “navy seal” from being heard was the ORGANISERS of the meeting, not the protesters. The ORGANISERS cancelled the meeting, not the protesters, so if you are going to complain about anyone undermining democracy and the ability of people to be heard, complain about the organisers not the protesters.
You, Richard, like so many other Zionists and other conservatives love to pay lip service to free speech, the right to dissent and civil disobedience. However the moment someone, who you disagree with, wants to actually put it into action – to express their free speech and to express their right to dissent – you cry foul. As I said, the only people stopping this fellow being heard were the organisers, not the protesters. IT WAS THE ORGANISERS CHOICE TO CANCEL thus they silenced the speaker NOT the protesters.
As for the massacre – yes, I have made an INFORMED conclusion about the massacre – I saw the footage shot on the boat by the protesters, I saw the footage doctored by the Israeli military, I read the testimonies of participants and the so-called “navy seals” (I don’t need to hear this particular “navy seal” to get that information as the testimony of numerous Israeli “navy seals” were splashed all over the Israeli media and through the Israeli state media releases at the time). I have also spoken to several of the participants on the flotilla (one of whom was shot by the Israeli “navy seals”) and I have read the whitewashed report on the incident carried out by the Israeli state.
So why hasn’t it been returned to it’s owners?
You’re now resorting to making things up. Gaza’s port could easily accommodate that ship and while the organizers admitted one of the objectives was political, they did;t say it was more relevant than the humanitarian one. You don’t transport that much aid if the aid was a secondary concern.
That proves hat their motives were not violent and that they resorted to self defense, albeit primitive.
Perhaps because they wanted to use it for their own investigation.
And of course it is impossible to make copies. Except for the highly-edited copies that the IDF passed around to the whole world.
They were killed because they tried to kill the soldiers.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
They were killed because they resisted the piratical assault on their ship. Which is to say, they were killed because they defended themselves.
As opposed to “trying to kill the soldiers,” the people on the ship gave the soldiers medical attention once they were disarmed. They could have easily killed them; they did not, because this was not their purpose. Their purpose was to defend themselves from attack.
As opposed to the IDF murderers, whose victims were not “trying to kill the soldiers” or even in many cases defending themselves. The IDF killed people using cameras, and murdered disarmed and unresisting people by shooting them in the head at point-blank range.
The reason they were killed is that the IDF troops were murderous thugs who couldn’t stand to see anyone try to defend themselves.
They were killed because they resisted the piratical assault on their ship. Which is to say, they were killed because they defended themselves.
i think they were killed for being there and for being on the turkish vessel. they were attacked before they had a chance to defend themselves as the tapes reveal.
The reason they were killed is that the IDF troops were murderous thugs who couldn’t stand to see anyone try to defend themselves.
they were carrying out their assignment. had they been instructed to bring them in unharmed that is likely what they would have done. they imposed a hostile confrontation on the passengers and tried justifying it. they people who support anything they do also supported this vile massacre.
Remember the EXODUS? Some dude wrote a book about it.
What was the mission of the Exodus? To deliver refugees to Palestine? Not really. The Zionists knew the ship wouldn’t get through the blockade. No, the mission was to create publicity toward ending the blockade. The mission was to show the world the children dying, one by one, on the ship, because of the evil blockade that would not let them through.
It was somewhat successful in that.
But old terrorists turned oppressors never like to be reminded when someone else uses their own tactics against them.
..and the quantity of aid was significant: 10,000 tonnes worth around $20 million.
Tree ~ It appears the UNHRC has been somewhat hoodwinked on the question of the Free Gaza Flotilla being a political or humanitarian mission. While the organisers were totally upfront about it being both, saying the refusal of the Flotilla organisers to redirect the ships to Ashdod constituted a political act is 100% wrong. You are right to disagree with the UNHRC report on that point, and here’s proof:
In the days leading up to May 31 the Israel MFA issued a number of statements saying the Flotilla should deliver the aid to Ashdod and it would then be inspected and sent on to Gaza. This sounds fine – and the international media swallowed it hook, line and sinker – but in fact the intention was to pass only items that were on Israel’s list of the 100 or so permitted items. From a May 31 AP release [my emphasis]:
The flotilla, which includes three cargo ships and three passenger ships, is trying to draw attention to Israel’s three-year blockade of the Gaza Strip. The boats are carrying items that Israel bars from reaching Gaza, like cement and other building materials. The activists said they also were carrying hundreds of electric-powered wheelchairs, prefabricated homes and water purifiers.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that after a security check, permitted humanitarian aid confiscated from the boats will be transferred to Gaza through authorised channels. However, Israel would not transfer items it has banned from Gaza under its blockade rules. Mr Palmor said that for example, cement would be allowed only if it is tied to a specific project.
So the decision not to redirect the boats to Ashdod voluntarily was sound, and based on the Flotilla’s stated goal of delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza. Had they redirected to Ashdod the bulk of their cargo would not have been delivered, so they had no choice but to take a chance Israel would let ships into Gaza. It was a humanitarian decision, more than a political one.
Yes, it’s ludicrous to suggest the Israeli attackers were frightened into killing unarmed passengers. The soldiers, armed to the teeth as they were, were vastly outnumbered by passengers. As you point out, Potsherd, there are photos of at least one slightly injured soldier receiving medical treatment from passengers. They could easily have killed him or held him hostage, but instead they returned him to his fellow-attackers. There isn’t any proof that these minor injuries to a few of the commandoes were caused by passengers. Had any soldiers been hurt we would have seen video and photos and weeping and wailing at their bedside. The passengers did the right thing in the face of brutality they never expected. They were well away from Israeli waters and should never have been attacked by pirates who in any other situation would have been condemned by the U.S. as they were condemned by just about every other country and state.
Right annie, Israel’s interaction with the flotilla went exactly as planed (a violent confrontation), though it could have been handled much differently.
For people that didn’t follow the flotilla closely, at the time of the raid the ships were about 60 miles west of Israel/Gaza’s coastline, well into international waters, and travelling in a southerly direction. The Free Gaza organisers had said they wanted to avoid a night-time confrontation with any Israeli forces so were travelling parallel to the coast until daylight when they planned to turn east and make their run to Gaza. The Israeli navy pursued them into international water and launched the raid at about 4.30AM. When the Israeli ships were first sighted the flotilla turned west and were actually heading away from the Israel/Gaza coast at the time of the raid.
There were many other ways it could have been handled, eg. disabling the ships propellers and towing the boats to Ashdod. But Israel chose to make a bloodbath (check out Iara Lee’s 1 hour of smuggled footage, available in HD) in an attempt to intimidate any further humanitarian excursions into Gaza.
*tidbit: on the open sea ships are considered the territory of the flag they are flying. The violent assault on the Turkish Mavi Marmara technically constituted an Israeli attack on Turkey, and as a NATO country Turkey had the right to demand a NATO response to the Israeli assault. Had they done so it would have put them US in a very tricky position..
I doubt if they were explicitly ordered to murder people in cold blood. But they weren’t ordered not to. And this is how the IDF is used to dealing with the untermenschen who dare resist oppression.
i agree. i seriously doubt the explicit orders were to murder people in cold blood.
good catch.
His friends grandmother? Many of my relatives DIED in, and did not survive the Holocaust. Not my friends’ relatives, my OWN relatives.
How do you think I feel when Zionists in Israel make death threats against a Holocaust survivor for renting to Arab students, knowing that my relatives in Nazi Germany weren’t allowed to rent from Germans and were herded into ghettos and concentration camps? Because a Holocaust survivor doesn’t want to treat his neighbors the way the Nazis treated him, the Zionists threaten to kill him?
Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel was correct in telling Netanyahu that he’s a known liar and that Israel has no more credibility in the world. Germany acknowledged the Holocaust and paid compensation, but Israel denies what it is doing to Palestinians and to humanitarian relief efforts right now.
Nobody is more scarred because a friend’s grandmother survived the Holocaust than I am scarred because my own relatives did NOT survive. Your pitiful attempt to play on the sympathy for Holocaust survivors, when Zionists themselves have no sympathy for Holocaust survivors who respect human rights, dignity, and equality for all, is disgusting.
For many years, as I attempted to defend human rights, I was attacked by Zionists calling me anti-Semitic or a self-hating Jew. Eventually I began to realize that Zionists cannot reason, they only know how to lie and attack. The more that Zionists smeared decent Jews with vile epithets, the more decent Jews around the world because aware of the true nature of Zionism. You don’t do yourself or Israel any good with lies, smears, and false appeals for sympathy.
If you want people to respect you, follow Torah and do not do to your Palestinian neighbors, that which was hateful when the Nazis did it to Jews. The comparison is not only valid, it is inevitable.
thank you sumud. this is exactly my take on it. they also isolated the Mavi Marmara, they targeted it.
tidbit; running a blockade is often perilous but if Turkey wanted to declare war it had plenty of opportunity.
it did not and if it had asked for a NATO response it would have been quietly and politely told “we’ll get back to you, but don’t skip lunch waiting.”
“mymarkx March 10, 2011 at 8:50 pm
His friends grandmother? Many of my relatives DIED in, and did not survive the Holocaust. Not my friends’ relatives, my OWN relatives. ”
My sarcasm didn’t fly apparently haha, I had originally been far more sarcastic, comparing hophmi’s bluster to Herman Rosenblat and his completely fabricated apple story and the woman who claimed to eat her own poop to save her mother’s diamonds but the posts wouldn’t appear so I settled for a failed attempt at humor. My bad man.
…demonstrating NATO is probably not worth the paper it’s written on; though it has treaty obligations I can’t see the US supporting Turkey against Israel, had Turkey acted within it’s rights and requested NATO support.
Turkey wouldn’t have been declaring war; the aggressor was Israel fuster.
Vive la France.
Agree, this occurred tactically during the raid, and then after. Hasbara refers continually to the “Turkish Flotilla”, ignoring that the Flotilla was the result of an alliance of activists from about 35 countries around the world.
“The blockade is inhumane, therefore running it is humane. very simple.”
It is not at all simple. There is a reason humanitarian organizations do not become partisans in ongoing conflict. They need to maintain their neutrality. By taking up weaponry and making their cause primarily political, the flotilla activists placed all humanitarian activists at risk.
“And how did they try to kill the soldiers?”
With clubs and chains. And possibly firearms, though this is point of contention between the two reports.
“How do you figure that?”
Because the Turkel Report references it.
“No they defended themselves with sticks and chains against pirates carrying guns.”
Whatever floats your boat. Don’t smear the non-IHH members with the acts of the IHH participants. Most participants were apparently non-violent.
You know, another question you can ask is why the victims were overwhelmingly Turkish.
The answer is that it was the Turks who were the violent ones, again, according to both reports.
”
What the hell are you talking about?? They were defending their ship from illegal invaders. Had these Israeli simply thrown down their weapons, put thier hands behind their heads and fallen to their knees, nothing would have happened to them.”
Blather, blather, blather. Humanitarian activists are not in the violence business, and there’s a reason for that. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone would have been killed had the IHH done what people on every other ship did, engage in non-violence.
the flotilla activists placed all humanitarian activists at risk.
yes they did. and it is heroes like that who will sacrifice their lives to bring attention to this crime against humanity. where governments fail people will prevail. eventually we will.
TAKE THAT!
the Turks who were the violent ones
your racism disgusts me. the boat was targeted and isolated and attacked.
It seems clear, Shingo, that you did not read the report.
“By taking up weaponry and making their cause primarily political, the flotilla activists placed all humanitarian activists at risk. … With clubs and chains.”
They didn’t “take up weaponry” until the Israelis attacked. They tried to avoid provoking an attack by staying out in international waters. If they intended a knock-down drag-out fight with the Israeli military, surely they would have equipped themselves with something a bit more effective than clubs and chains.
The fighting looks like a last-minute reaction to an unprovoked attack. The Israelis came in shooting and the flotilla people defended themselves.
It takes a certain level of chutzpah to accuse people who happen to be in international waters — some 50 miles from Israel’s territorial waters — of taking up arms against armed Israeli pirates.
You speak of international law as though the fragmented logic that you’re using makes it all true.
With Zionists like you, the toad, witty, eee and yonira, Zionism is delegitimizing itself with every comment you make. Not that it was ever legitimate by any stretch of the imagination.
“The attack was unprovoked, in international waters where Israeli gunboats and vessels of war had no right to be. Israel got away with yet another massacre; please don’t embarrass yourself by claiming otherwise.”
Get a clue. I wrote about my friend’s grandmother in response to people here who said Hedy Epstein was a Holocaust survivor as if this enhanced her activism. This equation goes both ways.
By taking up weaponry and making their cause primarily political, the flotilla activists placed all humanitarian activists at risk.
Are you being deliberate stupid hophmi or have you just run out of ideas? Taking up weaponry? Where does it say that members of humanitarian organizations have to offer themselves up to be beaten and shot at?
With clubs and chains. And possibly firearms, though this is point of contention between the two reports.
There is no contention because the only firearms were carried by murderous pirates. It’s BS, and you know it’s BS.
Seriously hophmi, you’re not normally this deranged. What’s gotten into you?
The book is a fictional account, and most ships that took refugees to Palestine took them in order to get refugees in.
“your racism disgusts me. the boat was targeted and isolated and attacked.”
I guess the report’s racism disgusts you too.
Neither were these people, or they would have brought real weapons rather than improvising with makeshift sticks.
Yes there is. The IDF shot at the ship BEFORE boarding.
On the contrary Hophmi, it is clear that I have and you didn’t.
It isn’t hard hophmi, the bulk of the victims were Turkish because the Turkish boat is the boat Israel chose to spray with hails of live ammunition from helicopters. It’s much easier to sell a story to the world when you can claim “violent muslim Turks attacked the IDF” instead of “violent Swedish atheists attacked the IDF”.
If the Israeli narrative of events was even vaguely true they would not have confiscated all the video/photographic evidence of the raid, and they would have released all the raw footage of the raid that they did confiscate. But they haven’t, and they never will, because when you use military forces to attack a civilian ship in international waters (w/ snipers killing activists from the helicopters) it isn’t the activists that are initiating violence.
I linked to a June 2, 2010 news article below describing how the Israeli commandos first priority after taking over the ships was grabbing cameras and tapes of the raid, even those belonging to journalists. That smacks of a pre-meditated plan: violent attack on Flotilla followed by an effort to sieze all documentary evidence.
Let’s not also forget the ridiculous hasbara the MFA and IDF Spokesperson fabricated (then later withdrew) after the Mavi Marmara executions like: the IHH activists were Al Qaeda operatives, photos of Hezbollah-labelled weapons supposedly found in the flotilla (with EXIF data from 2 or 3 years before), and best of all the fabulously amateur “go back to Auschwitz” doctored audio of radio communication between the ships & Israeli navy.
Yeah, and the IDF statement that they’d found ammunition aboard of a caliber that the IDF didn’t use, only it turned out that they not only did use it, but used it aboard the Mavi Marmara.
And the absurd story that they’d boarded armed “only with paintball guns,” when it turned out that they’d not only had the types of weapons usually issued to Navy seals, but also personal sidearms, which were used in the point blank assassinations.
So many, many, many lies. I’m reading the Goldstone Report and there are a lot more ridiculous alibis that Israel tried to put over which were disproven by the facts on the ground. It has gotten to where if the Israeli government said that the water was wet, I’d have to suspect that maybe Ha-Shem had created another miracle and the water had been dry that day. ;)
That’s right mymarkx – it was 9mm Glock pistols, and if you recall, one Israeli soldier went nuts and killed 6 Flotilla activists, and received a medal for it (from Yaniv Reich @ Hybrid States, see original for further links):
In his testimony, he explains how he came to murder so many people. As reported by The Times:
“As he landed on the ship’s top deck, he said he saw three of his superior officers who had landed ahead of him lying wounded, one with a bullet wound to the stomach, another shot in the knee and the third beaten unconscious.
Taking charge, he formed his men in a perimeter around the wounded, pulled his 9mm Glock pistol and opened fire on passengers.”
Did you catch that? He told The Times that he pulled out his 9mm Glock pistol.
Yesterday, however, we were informed by a navy officer that navy commandos don’t carry 9mm guns, and that the empty 9mm casings were proof that the humanitarian activists had brought guns with them. Oops, someone forgot to tell Sergeant S. Then, of course, Michael Oren parroted a recital of this “evidence” on the op-ed pages of the New York Times, unchallenged by any differing opinions or contradictory testimony, as usual.
Testimony of rogue commando who killed six civilian activists further undermines official IDF story
The Sunday Times report saying the Israeli rambo-wannabe would be given a medal:
Israeli commando who shot six passengers in aid convoy in line for medal
I have wondered if this Navy Seal is in fact “Staff Sergeant S”.
Thank you, Sumud. If there’s an entity with less credibility than the Israeli government, it would have to be the New York Times.
While the sayanim trying to spread hasbara here and in many other forums, know that they are lying, there are many Israeli Jews and diaspora Jews who are too credulous to ever check things out for themselves and really believe the lies they are told.
But it only takes one experience of the truth, such as in the many first-hand accounts from Israelis who visited Gaza fearing that the Arabs hated them and wanted to kill them, as they’d always been told, only to find that the Palestinians were warm and friendly and wanted only for Israel to stop its oppression, for people to learn to question and begin to look with their own eyes.
The more lies Israel tells, the greater the chance that even the most credulous will accidentally stumble upon a truth and begin to understand that they’ve been lied to all along.
Don’t forget there were also the hit lists of passengers that they intended to target/kill.
The answer is that it was the Turks who were the violent ones, again, according to both reports
No, it was the Turks who were the dead ones. In the UNCHR report and the Turkish report there is no indication that any of passengers who were killed were involved in any attacks on the IDF soldiers. You keep misrepresenting what the UNCHR report said. Its totally dishonest of you.
He probably hasn’t read either report tree.
“Yes there is. The IDF shot at the ship BEFORE boarding”
LOL, after its soldiers were beaten as they tried to board to ship from the water. Read the report.
hophmi March 10, 2011 at 2:42 pm
One person can be massacred.
hophmi March 10, 2011 at 4:54 pm
There is no law against attempting to run such a blockade.
There is a law that says the Palestinian have a right to humanitarian aid by ANYONE who cares to offer it.
“None of the other boats did this, and…”
None of the other boats had soldiers shooting from helicopters before rappelling down onto the decks with guns. (paintball guns did not kill 9 people)
Oh, BTW It’s fun watching folk like yourself jumping from one absurdity to the next
hophmi, i think you should wake up to the degree to which an attack on a humanitarian ship in int’l waters, in which 8 Turks and 1 American were killed by Israeli commandoes– stunned people around the world and has caused people to abandon your cause. would you do the same tomorrow? the flotilla organizers say, Yes. I dont think you wd say Yes for yr side
“hophmi, i think you should wake up to the degree to which an attack on a humanitarian ship in int’l waters, in which 8 Turks and 1 American were killed by Israeli commandoes– stunned people around the world and has caused people to abandon your cause. ”
With all due respect, Phil, I don’t think people were that much for the cause before this happened, and I don’t think that was much were against it after it happened.
“would you do the same tomorrow? the flotilla organizers say, Yes. I dont think you wd say Yes for yr side”
If Israeli soldiers were at mortal risk, I would expect that would use force to subdue those constituting the threat. There is no reason at all to believe that it is Israeli policy to kill humanitarian flotilla activist. There have been many flotillas. There has been one ship were people died, and it happened to be the ship where people made weapons and beat up soldiers. I understand that it is necessary for you as a partisan activist to reject that narrative, but hey, that’s what makes the world go round.
The events were real, the deaths were real, the PR was real.
The children who died didn’t volunteer to be served up as martyrs to the Zionist cause, btw. Unlike the brave Turkish citizens who boarded the Mavi Marmara.
if it had asked for a NATO response it would have been quietly and politely told “we’ll get back to you, but don’t skip lunch waiting.”
And that’s part of the problem. NATO’s rules REQUIRE the organization to respond to an attack on any of its members. Why is Israel the exception?
Phil, Obviously Israel’s image took a beating in the wake of the flotilla incident, so nobody needs to “wake up” to that fact. As I’ve pointed out, the raid on the Mavi Marmara was a fiasco, a screw-up, caused by a failure of military intelligence: the IDF actually fell for the propaganda line according to which the ship carried “non-violent peace activists” , so the soldiers were taken by surprise by the reality of the ultra-violent men “greeting” them on board. The soldiers opened fire with live ammunition only when they were convinced that their lives were in danger.
So in answer to your question I imagine that in such a situation in the future a different strategy would be devised. Clearly, rapelling down one by one into the middle of a bunch of guys waiting to beat, club, stab, shoot and throw the soldiers off the deck would be a bad idea.
the raid on the Mavi Marmara was a fiasco, a screw-up, caused by a failure of military intelligence
you wouldn’t be saying that had the world responded differently and backed israel’s narrative. this wasn’t a failure of intelligence, it was a failure in morals, judgment, integrity and good conscious. ultra-violent men do not go on missions sans weapons. no one is buying your fantasy. you are either as dumb as a doorknob or think we are. just stop. no one bought this crap from the beginning and no one is buying it now. put it to rest jon.
perhaps you should read Midnight on the Mavi Marmara to grasp what kind of reality you are up against.
truth is your friend, it can set you free.
“ultra-violent men do not go on missions sans weapons.”
No, sometimes they just use box-cutters, like on 9/11.
@JonS
The level of your self-delusion is astonishing. You are actually saying that Israel’s only mistake is that when armed-to-the-teeth Navy Seals descended from attack helicopters while firing live ammunition onto the deck of a passenger boat in international waters they had been promised by their leaders there would be no resistance? That is your excuse? So if an armed thug breaks into a house and gets hurt by a woman who scratches his face while he is attempting to rape her, then his attack is justified on the basis he didn’t realize she would resist?
You know, Jon S, a lie, no matter how oft-repeated, is still a lie. This is something the hasbarists don’t seem to understand.
“No, sometimes they just use box-cutters, like on 9/11.”
Did Daniel Lewin use a box cutter?
With all due respect, Hphmi, I don’t think you realize that one of the aims fo teh flotilla was to raise people’s awareness of the siege on Gaza, and so when this happened, it provoked interests and outrage.
Apart from the hit lists identifying certain passngers, that they were found carring.
After his death, the intersection of Main and Vassar Streets in Cambridge was renamed “Danny Lewin Square” in his honor. (Wikipedia)
Yes Jon. 4 bullets to the back of someon’s head, execution style from point blank range, shows exactly how much danger there was.
With all due respect, Hphmi, I don’t think you realize that one of the aims fo teh flotilla was to raise people’s awareness of the siege on Gaza, and so when this happened, it provoked interests and outrage.
Apart from the hit lists identifying certain passngers, that they were found carring.
Clearly, you need to provide evidence that anyone from teh IDF was shot and if so, what wepoan was used, seeing as nione were ever produced.
They also used planes Hophmi. So unless you can make a case that the flotilla planned to ram their boats into an Israeli port, your analogy fails miserably.
LOL, after its soldiers were beaten as they tried to board to ship from the water. Read the report.
You keep misquoting the report and then telling people to read the report, as if what you say is in line with the UNCHR report, when it is not. That’s extremely dishonest of you. IDF soldiers were firing weapons from the zodiac boats before the passengers tried to resist their boarding by throwing objects. No one was beaten while trying to board the ship from the water, and the first violence came from the IDF not the passengers. From the report:
The last point goes to your assumption that the IDF soldiers in the helicopters were completely surprised by the resistance they met on the top deck. It was perfectly obvious from the resistance encountered by the zodiacs that any soldier attempting to board was going to be met with some sort of resistance. There was no need to board the ship, since they could easily disable it and lead it to Ashdod if they wished.
thanks tree, that is v helpful
“ultra-violent men do not go on missions sans weapons.”
No, sometimes they just use box-cutters, like on 9/11.
And sometimes they use stun grenades and plastic bullets and paintball guns, backed up with easily accessible lethal weapons which they use to kill 9 civilians and injure 65. If the passengers on board the ship wanted to kill the 3 IDF soldiers they had custody of, they could have and would have. There are no dead IDF soldiers. There are 9 dead civilians.
It does demonstrate the unreal fantasy world they live in. They think nothing has changed since Cast Lead. They think everyone will bow before them and be impressed by this goon, as if he was some kind of soldier hero. They think the US public will believe anything they are told by the lobby and fake video footage.
They are so out of touch it is laughable.
Israel has this cult of the soldier that is like the marrow of Jewish Israeli society. I can see why the presentation in NYC makes sense from an Israeli perspective. It is the same as the Masada visits or the veneration of the dead on Mount Herzl or the hungama over Shalit.
But is is impossible for a regular liberal to understand .
Well, I’ll be damned. . . . Exactly the opposite outcome to what I figured would happen. Maybe something really is changing.
Since we don’t know the actual identity of the guest war criminal, there are a lot of missing details. Was there an issue with getting the war criminal into the US? (Seems unlikely — so much ready company already here) Did the legal eagles at NYU raise alarm bells?
Most likely the war criminal himself realized that the odds were too high that, if nothing else, he might get tied up in court (just long enough for one of the many obedient American judges to dismiss any charge against him). Or even more likely, higher ups in Israel realized that the odds of some negative press might be too high — even in the tame US market.
Saw this in Asia Times:
“… A highly significant part of the statement was its recognition right at the outset that the Palestinian problem lay at the very core of the great Middle Eastern alienation and the “recent developments in the Region may offer a chance for a comprehensive peace … This process should include the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict … that will lead to a two-state solution, with the creation of a sovereign, independent, united and viable Palestinian State, coexisting peacefully alongside Israel, with secure, pre-1967 borders, and with East Jerusalem as its capital.”
‘P-5′ loses shine
Israel will be hopping mad over the declaration. That apart, does it matter to Obama and NATO if three countries from three faraway continents stand up with a common stance on a “no-fly” zone? Who are these countries anyway? But, it does matter. Put simply, the three countries also happen to be currently serving as non-permanent members of the UN Security Council and their stance happens to have high visibility in the world’s pecking order on Libya. ”
full article here link to atimes.com
Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Israel will not be “hopping mad” over a deal that leaves it living peacefully next to a Palestinian state.
Israel will prevent such a deal from taking place, and feel quite smug about it. So, no, they will not be mad.
“Israel will not be “hopping mad” over a deal that leaves it living peacefully next to a Palestinian state.”
“Israel will prevent such a deal from taking place, and feel quite smug about it. ”
Oh I don’t know. If they can steal enough land and don’t feel like going through the trouble of expelling the remaining Palestinians, they might be happy enough to live peacefully next to some pathetic rump state for the Palestinians.
Donald, expelling the remaining palestinians hasn’t ever been on the program.
Even stealing any more land wasn’t on the program until after Khartoum.
let me amend that. expelling Palestinians from Jerusalem in order to have an overwhelming majority has always been on the program and the program is going full-bore right now.
Oh? Then you should tell it to Avigdor Lieberman. And the Israelis who constantly try to remind us that “the Palestinian state is Jordan” and urge the Palestinians to go live there.
They may urge all they wish, just as the people who urge the Israelis to return to Poland may talk. Talk is cheap.
no, it is not ‘just as the people who urge the Israelis to return to Poland’.
no, annie, they’re just as just as are those people.
Even stealing any more land wasn’t on the program until after Khartoum
source? more of your hypotheticals?
one is helen thomas w/no political force or power. the other is the foreign minister of israel who represents political force and power .
besides, the two are not equivalent in other ways as well, don’t compare them.
The people fencing Palestinians off from their land, destroying their wells, bulldozing their houses aren’t just talking. It’s the program.
Three answers, annie
No
No
No
Three answers
i’m not asking questions, i’m informing you and you’re diverting again. there’s no equivalence between some overblown hasbarafest against a ninety year old woman that has no political backing whatsoever and what is increasingly becoming obvious israeli state policy. you’re diverting and acting like a little pest. grow up.
I’ll give you a hint, Israeli propaganda doesn’t call it “expelling”. The term you’re looking for is “Transfer”.
Wrong, it’s been long-term Israeli policy and Lieberman’s speech at the UN on his plan to strip Palestinian Israelis of their Israeli citizenship and pick up & move the border, is merely the latest (and most vanilla) incarnation. Netanyahu in 1989 said:
Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.
…and their were great fears in 2003 that Ariel Sharon would use the cover of the Iraq War to undertake a mass expulsion of Palestinians into Jordan. Jordan requested a commitment from Sharon that he would not do so, and Sharon refused. Article covering these and other regular “transfer” statements by prominent Israeli politicians:
‘Transfer’ is nothing more than ethnic cleansing
Ethnic cleansing also had widespread support among the peace-loving Israeli population, even in 2003 (from the EI article):
Recent polls show that more than 40% of the Israeli population is in favor of “transfer.”
I dread to think what the figure would be now with Israel’s lurch to even more extremist policies.
*correction: that article I link to above at Electronic Intifada article on transfer/ethnic cleansing is not EI authored, it was a position paper by Jews Against The Occupation.
That’s not an answer fuster (at least not an intelligible one). Citing the three no’s at Khartoum doesn’t support your claim that Israel was willing to end the occupation of the Palestinian territories before Khartoum.
heh, “security issues”
Shorthand Zio-speak for “someone might try to arrest our speaker”?
I’m dying to see the Israeli papers’ spin on this in a day or three.
Ben-Dror Yemini always has such enlightening things to say about these things.
The security issues could have been, “some will assault those that attend”.
“The MEANS are the ends”.
What that means to those that are a little dense, is that the PROCESS of democracy is the end, the right to speak and the right to hear.
>> What that means to those that are a little dense, is that the PROCESS of democracy is the end, the right to speak and the right to hear.
What a self-righteous, Zio-supremacist hypocrite! I’ve lost count of the number of times you have condemned peaceful pro-Palestinian protesters for exercising their right to speak and their right to hear (in case you’re a little dense, that means the PROCESS of democracy) and excused Israeli Assault Forces for wounding, maiming or killing these protesters.
You never cease to amaze and disgust with your hatefulness and supremacism.
The word “dense” get to you?
You know well that I do not object to free speech by dissenters.
>> The word “dense” get to you?
Not at all. It’s your disgusting hypocrisy that gets to me.
>> You know well that I do not object to free speech by dissenters.
No, I don’t know that at all.
Ever the paranoid, eh?
Who would bother assaulting anyone when the parents of Furkan Dogan, the young American-born man who was murdered on the Mavi Marmara, could sue the Israeli government in a US court and have an arrest warrant delivered to the guest speaker at NYU?
Do you have any idea how bad a publicity that will generate for the pro-Israel student club, for NYU, and for Israel?
What are you talking about? Individual citizens cannot secure arrest warrants for personal lawsuits. It does not work that way.
There is no chance that this soldier was getting indicted. The feds are not bringing a case like this. So let’s get past this nonsense.
There is no chance that this soldier was getting indicted. The feds are not bringing a case like this.
That’s the problem, hophmi. That’s exactly the problem. The US government is complicit in the murder of an American citizen, complicit in covering it up, and protecting the murderer from prosecution.
There are people in Guantanamo, locked up for life without possibility of trial or release because the US found some tenuous evidence that they might have been involved in the deaths of Americans. But those guys were Muslims. This murderer is Israeli. That makes all the difference. The US has handed Israel impunity for almost* any crime it might commit against Americans.
*Jonanthan Pollard is in jail, but there is a big push to have him released, for no apparent reason except that he is a Jew.
Wonder if the suggestion that Pabelmont’s put forward was looked into
pabelmont March 9, 2011 at 11:44 am
Talk to NLG or CCR to find a lawyer to draft a JOHN DOE complaint for civil damages against this guy and serve him at the meeting. Furkan Dogan’s paretns might be the complainants.
Report this comment
Reply
9 Kathleen March 9, 2011 at 11:58 am
Furkan Dogan’s father just spoke in New York. Wondering if he will attend? Would really like to hear what he would say to this Israeli soldier. Hell this guy could have been one of the murderers who blew bullets in his sons head at close range.
Wonder if his father is still in close proximity to this event?
link to occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com
Wonder if Adam or Phil know where he is? He would wipe up the carpet with this guy
Report this comment
Reply
10 Potsherd2 March 9, 2011 at 12:04 pm
Belmont you are a genius!
I doubt it.
Did you find the report about what took place on the Mavi Marmara disturbing at all? Do you have a compassionate bone in your body for anyone who is not Jewish? I don’t think you do
By the way hophmi what would you call blowing bullets into someone who was holding a camera’s head at close range? A picnic?
Enlighten us, then, hophmi. What made the cowards back out if not fear of protest or fear of the speaker being served?
“Enlighten us, then, hophmi. What made the cowards back out if not fear of protest or fear of the speaker being served?”
Well, Potsherd, I’ve chosen not to speculate, because I DON’T KNOW. I wrote to Nicole to ask the reason and haven’t gotten a response. Last I check, Phil and Adam apparently are journalists, so maybe they can figure it out, you know, by actually talking to people rather than engaging in speculation and encouraging others to do the same.
I can only say that for things like this, threat assessments are often made, and sometimes sponsoring organizations cannot cover the costs of the security requested or the university cannot ensure safety to their satisfaction. Other than noting these general things, I will not speculate on the reason why.
I can only say that for things like this, threat assessments are often made, and sometimes sponsoring organizations cannot cover the costs of the security requested or the university cannot ensure safety to their satisfaction. Other than noting these general things, I will not speculate on the reason why.
Not true. On the other earlier thread, after announcing the cancellation you made this immediate speculation:
“So what do you have to say now? Looks like your side has been successful in shutting down speech.”
March 9th at 5:29pm
Want to explain the hypocrisy?
If you do not know, hophmi, then you do not know that all the reasons suggested here are wrong, as you have strongly been suggesting all over the thread. So in fact it seems that you’re speculating away.
““So what do you have to say now? Looks like your side has been successful in shutting down speech.”
So it’s your position that your side had nothing to do with shutting it down? Hey, maybe you do know something.
“If you do not know, hophmi, then you do not know that all the reasons suggested here are wrong, as you have strongly been suggesting all over the thread. So in fact it seems that you’re speculating away.”
Can’t prove a negative. You could say that it was cancelled because of the threat of imminent attack by the flying speghetti monster, and I wouldn’t be able to disprove it.
So it’s your position that your side had nothing to do with shutting it down? Hey, maybe you do know something.
Ah, so now you speculate yet again!
No, hophmi, I don’t know why they canceled. I’m simply pointing out that you wildly speculated on why the event was canceled immediately after it was canceled, so to berate others for speculating is incredibly hypocritical.
I AM willing to speculate, based on your past comments, that you really don’t object to reasonable speculation, its just speculation that puts Israel in a bad light that you object to. I think that explains your hypocrisy on this subject.
Also, at this point, all we know is that it was “canceled”. “Shut down” implies you are speculating about what happened.
By the way hophmi what would you call blowing bullets into someone who was holding a camera’s head at close range? A picnic?—
unsubstantiated, Kathleen
I would call it unsubstantiated.
I would call it grounds for indictment.
I did not say that this soldier shot those bullets into Furkans head..but one of those Israeli soldiers did. I am asking hophmi about that fact
go read the report fuster
Kathleen, the report contains little other than reports from the folks who were on the boat and some autopsy reports.
It’s not to be swallowed whole.
Kathleen, the report contains little other than reports from the folks who were on the boat and some autopsy reports.
Actually the report had access to all 8 autopsy reports and to numerous eyewitness reports. In criminal cases, this is sufficient information to seek an indictment.
Fuster, the UNHCR report also includes some testimony given by Israelis to the Turkel Committee. It included any testimony or information given it by the Israeli government. The fact that the Israeli government did not cooperate fully with the investigation, and refused to allow any testimony from the soldiers involved is not the fault of the UNHCR. Nor is the fact that the Israeli government refused to publicly release any of the confiscated video and photo evidence the fault of the UNHCR In fact the Israeli Turkel Commission was not permitted to cross examine any of the IDF soldiers either, and the “testimony” from them consisted of written statements only, and no attempt was made to correlate the types of injuries and deaths incurred with those testimonies.
Yeah, autopsy reports. They usually put quite a bit of weight on those in murder trials.
“Fuster, the UNHCR report also includes some testimony given by Israelis to the Turkel Committee. ”
Exceedingly little.
“The fact that the Israeli government did not cooperate fully with the investigation, and refused to allow any testimony from the soldiers involved is not the fault of the UNHCR. ”
I disagree. If the UNHCR had clean hands, the Israelis would have cooperated with it. But it has a record of disproportionately singling out Israel, a record criticized by Ban Ki-Moon and Kofi Annan.
“In fact the Israeli Turkel Commission was not permitted to cross examine any of the IDF soldiers either, and the “testimony” from them consisted of written statements only, and no attempt was made to correlate the types of injuries and deaths incurred with those testimonies.”
Were the eyewitnesses from the Mavi Marmara cross-examined?
“Yeah, autopsy reports. They usually put quite a bit of weight on those in murder trials.”
Yeah, and watch Frontline’s report on the state of coroners and autopsy doctors in the US. It’s a travesty. Many innocent people have gone to jail because of mistakes in autopsies.
Yeah, and watch Frontline’s report on the state of coroners and autopsy doctors in the US.
The autopsies were done in Turkey, not the US.
Of course, Israel did wash the bodies and destroy forensic evidence before turning over the bodies and the ship and confiscated numerous pieces of evidence which were either destroyed or withheld. But lets not speculate on why Israel would attempt to destroy evidence. No, lets trot out the state of autopsy reports in the US as if that means anything.
Were the eyewitnesses from the Mavi Marmara cross-examined?
Over 100 eyewitnesses were interviewed in 4 different locations by the UNHCR. The Council requested testimony from the Israelis and received none, other than that they received from indirect sources. The Israeli Turkel Commisiion allowed the soldiers to submit written testimonies, not interviews, and only heard from 2 eyewitnesses aboard the ship. They also did not utilize any of the interviews given to the UNHCR which were given to them.
If the UNHCR had clean hands, the Israelis would have cooperated with it. But it has a record of disproportionately singling out Israel, a record criticized by Ban Ki-Moon and Kofi Annan.
The criticisms of the UNHRC by Moon and Annan have nothing to do with its objectivity in the reports it issues. Their criticisms had to do with the selection of what to investigate and the efficacy of issuing reports in terms of solving problems. And if, as you say, Israel had no objections to sharing information with those with “clean hands” then why did it not cooperate with Turkey’s investigation, since for decades prior to the Mavi Marmara, Turkey had been considered by Israel as a ally? And why did Israel not make public the evidence that it had confiscated with the release of its own Turkel report? Why did they not include any medical evidence to support the claimed injuries in the Turkel Report? Are you going to claim that the Israeli Turkel Commission didn’t have “clean hands”?
Heading out.
Still would like a response from hophmi. Did you find anything disturbing in that report about what took place on the Mavi Marmara? Do you have a compassionate bone in your body for anyone who is subject to that kind of violence who is not Jewish? I really do not think you do.
silence
“Do you have a compassionate bone in your body for anyone who is subject to that kind of violence who is not Jewish? I really do not think you do.
You really, really need to learn not to assume things, Kathleen. I could just as well throw the same accusation at you for your silence in condemning rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.
I am sympathetic to anyone who was hurt or killed on the Mavi Marmara. I made that clear many times when the event happened. When my representative, Carolyn McCarthy, was criticized by people in my community for offering the same sympathy, I was outspoken in condemning them for criticizing her.
I am also sympathetic to those Israeli soldiers who, according to both the UNHRC report and the Turkel report, faced considerable violence from the passengers when they tried to board the ship, violence that was unexpected. There have been many flotillas to Gaza. There is only one instance of people getting killed. That is the instance where they used violence against the soldiers, abducting and stabbing them. I am sympathetic to the challenges young soldiers face in very tight quarters when they are fighting for their lives. I do not think these soldiers went there with the intention of killing people. I believe bad things happen in the fog of war, including shooting people at point blank range.
I am also sympathetic to people in Sderot and elsewhere who have to face rocket fire and to Israel who has to come up with a way to deal with this problem.
Lemme see if I can make this work…
I am also sympathetic to those Israeli soldiers who, according to both the UNHRC report and the Turkel report, faced considerable violence from the passengers when they tried to board the ship, violence that was unexpected.
Since you incorrectly summarized the UNHCR report as regards to the humanitarian aid flotilla, perhaps you should directly quote from the UNHCR report to support you statement above. Otherwise I don’t think that any one of us should take your word for what the report says.
For anyone who is interested in the testimony of the IDF soldiers, see here, from about page 143:
link to turkel-committee.com
“For anyone who is interested in the testimony of the IDF soldiers…”
And for anyone interested, I’m sure all the murderers and criminals in jail would be just as happy to tell you all about how innocent they are and how they were framed.
jon, would you think that that report is more likely to give a complete and honest picture of what happened than the report from the UN HRC?
Would you trust that it’s a fair and full report?
Fuster, Yes, I think that the Turkel com. did a pretty good job, and as you can see, the report is detailed and supported by hard evidence- recordings, videotapes, etc.
All in all the flotilla incident was a colossal fiasco from Israel’s standpoint, for which it took quite a beating in international public opinion, and an effective PR stunt from the standpoint of the Hamas and its sympathizers .
Ironically, it looks like the IDF itself fell for the Hamas-IHH propaganda, and the soldiers expected to find non-violent peace activists on board. They were taken by surprise when it turned out that the men on the deck were anything but “non-violent activists”.
jon, I suspect that the Turkel report was quite thorough and quite carefully designed to exclude things that would reflect poorly on Israel.
Neither that report nor the Turkish government’s report nor the UN HRC report is to be trusted.
Might as well include the Turkish report here, too.
link to turkishweekly.net
Have you read that one too, jon s?
And the Amnesty International critique of the Israeli report:
link to amnesty.org
My post at firedoglake on the cancellation.
Israelis (and some of their apologists here) suggest that passengers were killed on the MAVI MARMARA and not on the other boats because the MAVI MARMARA passengers were violent. They also claim that there was no violence on any other boat. First of all there was violence on all the boats. Boats filled with unarmed passengers known to be on a humanitarian mission were boarded by pirates in international waters. Guns were fired by the attackers, and many were hurt by paint guns. Some passengers were beaten, handcuffed, blindfolded. All the passengers on all the boats were forced at gunpoint to be transported against their will to Israel, where they were thrown in jail. They were then charged with being in Israel illegally and were asked to sign statements admitting to that fact. Few passengers signed. Some people believe the passengers on the MAVI MARMARA were singled out especially because they were mostly Muslims, many of them praying when the attack occurred.
And to add insult to injury all the passengers were robbed in some way. Credit cards and cellphones were used by Israeli soldiers, and one soldier admitted selling several computers taken from passengers.
And all this from the world’s most moral army?
Two Australian journalists were on one of the smaller boats (Challenger 1) and both recounted the violent takeover of their ship, including photographer Kate Geraghty being tasered:
Stun gun used on Aussie photographer
Huwaida Arraf (co-founder of ISM) was on the same ship, and spoke about Geraghty and the priorities of the Israeli commandos:
“She was trying to send out some pictures before our boat was taken over but all of our satellite capabilities were jammed and she was not able to do that.”
Once the commandos boarded the vessel, one of their first acts was to seize all communication equipment, cameras and memory cards, Ms Arraf said.
And nearly a year later, we’re still waiting for Israel to release all the footage of the raid they confiscated. What we need is some brave Israeli soldier who has access to the footage to copy and leak it to the world.
Racism is exactly right. I suspect the passengers on board the MAVI MARMARA especially targetted because they were known to be primarily Muslims and also because there was far less likelihood of killing Jews on that boat, since there were several Jews on board the other flotilla boats. All boats were attacked and boarded aggressively and brutally, but thankfully there were no fatalities except those on the MAVI MARMARA. No passenger on any boat was armed in any way. Passengers on all the boats were beaten and tasered, so it is a lie to claim that the only violence was on the MAVI MARMARA in order to justify killing those passengers who were no more prepared for the vicious attack from the IDF than were any of the passengers. All were unarmed. All were nowhere near Israeli territorial waters. All were victims of an unprovoked attack by armed thugs.
The soldiers on the Mavi Marmara were beaten , clubbed, thrown off the deck, stabbed and shot. Some non-violence.
“(Only) Israel has the right to defend itself.”
And anything Israel does is by definition, self defense.
Yes Jon, you prove the point. The rape victim who fights back is violent, at which point, she is no longer the victim. We get it.
BTW. Who was shot Jon?
Anyone claiming a shred of credibility for Turkel Commission needs to know Netanyahu stated the conclusions the Turkel Commission would make in the middle of June, 2010 – less than a fortnight after the attack on the Flotilla and fully 6 months before they delivered their first report. When you pre-ordain the outcome, it is not an investigation, it is a whitewash.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the start of Monday’s cabinet meeting that the main goal of the Gaza flotilla probe is to prove to the world that the Israel Navy operation on the Gaza-bound aid ship was appropriate and met international standards.
Haaretz, June 14 2010: Netanyahu: Gaza flotilla probe will show the world Israel acted lawfully
I’m glad you raised that point Sumud. That came to mind right away, but I forgot to mention it.
The main purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade, not deliver humanitarian aid. The Israeli authorities offered, well in advance of the confrontation, to deliver all genuine humanitarian aid to Gaza, after inspection. The flotilla activists refused. In any case, there were no humanitarian supplies on the Mavi Marmara.
As to the legality of the blockade: I’m no legal expert, but I know that there is an opinion according to which it’s legal under international law. That opinion is articulated in the Turkel report. Common sense tells me that it’s entirely reasonable to restrict access to a territory under the control of a terrorist organization, to make sure that it’s not importing arms and trained terrorists. It’s true that the flotilla was stopped in international waters, but I doubt that if the Israeli Navy had waited for the flotilla to enter territorial waters and then acted, the critics would have been satisfied.
Anyone who’s politically active and who has taken part in protests, demos, marches, sit-ins, and so forth ,knows the rules, more or less: you can march, sing, yell, wave placards, even sit on the street, locking arms with your buddies to make it difficult to carry you away. We’ve all been there, done that…What you can’t do is try to kill the cops!. And if you go to your demo intending to kill the cops – you run the risk of getting killed yourself.
Correction. There were multiple purposes. One was to deliver humanitarian aid, the other was to break the blockade, which is illegal
(the blockade that is).
Yeah right, the the same Israeli authorities who were confiscating pasta, spices, lentils and drawin pencils from Gaza.
False. There was nothing but humanitarian supplies on the Mavi Marmara.
It’s not commin sense Jon, it’s your rabbid Zionism that is so accustomed to inflicting collecive punishement on the palestinians while Israel contiones to be armed to the teeth with state of the art weapons, which is uses against civlian populations.
There were no cops involved. If a cop wants to shoot at your car while you’re travelling along a highway, then he’s not a cop, he’s a murderer.
The main purpose of the flotilla was to break the blockade and deliver humanitarian aid. Think about it jon s, they couldn’t do one without the other (and see below if you think they could).
False. Israel said it would deliver “humanitarian aid”, which by Israel’s definition meant items on Israel’s extremely limited list of items it was permitting into Gaza at the time. No coriander for you, Gazans. I’ve already linked above to a news article where an Israel MFA spokesperson says exactly this:
The flotilla, which includes three cargo ships and three passenger ships, is trying to draw attention to Israel’s three-year blockade of the Gaza Strip. The boats are carrying items that Israel bars from reaching Gaza, like cement and other building materials. The activists said they also were carrying hundreds of electric-powered wheelchairs, prefabricated homes and water purifiers.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said that after a security check, permitted humanitarian aid confiscated from the boats will be transferred to Gaza through authorised channels. However, Israel would not transfer items it has banned from Gaza under its blockade rules. Mr Palmor said that for example, cement would be allowed only if it is tied to a specific project.
With children in Gaza suffering malnutrition, and tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza living in tents because Israel bombed their houses & refused to let in reconstruction materials, Israel is the last authority I would turn to get a definition of “genuine humanitarian aid”.
A siege designed to harm civilians is not permitted under any international law, and subsequent leaks have shown us Israel’s intention was to do just that. Turkel Shmurkel, scroll up just a little jon s and see where I cite Netanyahu saying what the results of Turkel Commision “enquiry” would be, on the very day the commission was formed.
A terrorist organisation, in whose books? Only 35 or so countries designate Hamas a terrorist organisation and the more nuanced assessments (such as Australia and the UK) have no problem with the social service/political wings of Hamas, only the militant wing, the Al Qassam Brigade.
At any rate, the question is academic. The majority of Gaza’s population are children and civilians. As the occupying power in Gaza, Israel has Geneva Convention obligations which the blockade in Gaza is without question in violation of.
That’s right. Because the siege is illegitimate, raiding the ships in territorial waters belonging to Gaza and killing activists would have also caused an outcry. In fact, since Israel claims to have ended the occupation of Gaza, possibly more so. Since Israel violates Gaza’s territorial waters daily obviously the occupation of Gaza did not end in 2005, thus.. as the occupying power in Gaza, Israel has Geneva Convention obligations…
You see, Israel can’t have it both ways jon s.
If the cops go to the demo intending to kill you, only a fool would not fight back. I’m waiting for the day we get to see all the raid footage Israel felt it was necessary to confiscate, for conclusive evidence confirming eyewitness testimony Israeli snipers fired live ammunition from the helicopters before any soldier landed on deck. But the lack of any footage to the contrary speaks volumes. If Israel had it, they would release it.
We’ll never see that footage. Israel has certainly destroyed it, knowing that it proves their troops murdered unarmed and unresisting civilians.
The survivors have described how they were searched for recording equipment and anything that might have documented the events, to be confiscated so the truth coudn’t get out.
I fear you might be right Potsherd, but it existed for at least a while because Israel started releasing edited sections of it where they thought it could support their narrative. We don’t know what footage has escaped or may yet escape – and I’m not convinced it has all been erased.
@Jon S.
“but I doubt that if the Israeli Navy had waited for the flotilla to enter territorial waters and then acted, the critics would have been satisfied.”
There were no plans for the flotilla to ever enter Israel’s territorial waters. And yes, the Israelis offered to deliver the aid for us. We declined their offer. We don’t trust them.
Mariapalstina,
Or maybe you refused because delivering humanitarian aid wasn’t your first priority, you were more interested in scoring propaganda points.
In any case , there were no humanitarian supplies on the Mavi Marmara.
“Scoring propaganda points” — another way to phrase the flotilla’s objective: “Using nonviolent, direct action to draw the world’s attention to widespread and ongoing Israeli violations of human rights and international law.” What’s wrong with my restatement?
In any case , there were no humanitarian supplies on the Mavi Marmara.
In that case, what cause did Israel have to stop it? The alleged purpose of the blockade is to keep humanitarian supplies from being brought into Gaza, nu?
Or maybe you’re just making that up, and pretending that the flotilla and a set of goals that were ranked in priority, so that you can try and deminish the fact that the IDF atatcked a humanitarian mission?
No, the main purpose of the blockade is to prevent the Hamas terrorists from bringing in military supplies and trained personnel, and also, perhaps , smuggling Gilad Shalit out. Humanitarian supplies are not prevented.
The fact that there were no supplies of any kind on the MM wasn’t known in advance, only after inspection.
Wrong, wrong, wrong jon s. Just because the Free Gaza Flotilla contained items not on Israel’s list of ~100 permitted items doesn’t mean it wasn’t humanitarian aid:
According to the Haaretz, the number of items allowed into Gaza, since May 2010, is about 100. Before the blockade, some 4,000 items were allowed. Gisha states that a large Israeli supermarket holds 10,000-15,000 items.
Flotilla cargo:
Three of the flotilla ships carried only passengers and their personal belongings, while three other ships carried 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid, with an estimated value of $20 million. The cargo included food, wheelchairs, books, toys, electricity generators, operating theater equipment medicines, medical equipment, textiles, footwear, cash money, mobility scooters, sofas, and building materials, such as cement, which are prohibited under the Israeli blockade, although Israel offered to allow the cement to enter Gaza, if the flotilla were to dock in Ashdod.
Wrong again jon s. Wikileaks has confirmed what those of us not living on Planet Hasbara already knew: the siege of Gaza is a form of collective punishment visited upon a civilian population. Why are you continuing to push easily disproved false information?
From Wikileaks US Embassy cable releases:
In 2008, Israel told U.S. officials that Israel would keep Gaza’s economy “on the brink of collapse” while avoiding a humanitarian crisis, according to U.S. diplomatic cables published by a Norwegian daily newspaper. “As part of their overall embargo plan against Gaza, Israeli officials have confirmed to (U.S. embassy economic officers) on multiple occasions that they intend to keep the Gazan economy on the brink of collapse without quite pushing it over the edge,” a Nov. 3, 2008 U.S. cable stated. Israel wanted to maintain Gaza “functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis,” according to the cable.
Weapons are a red herring; if any group in Gaza want to import weapons or personnel they could simply use the hundreds of tunnels under the Gaza/Egypt border.
Also false: flotilla ships were thoroughly inspected in ports before they headed towards Gaza:
An activist said that it would have been impossible to have firearms on board because “all the boats were carefully inspected by the government before they left the port of departure.” Turkish officials supported the activists’ account, stating that every passenger that had left Turkey had been searched with X-ray machines and metal detectors before boarding. Senior officials in the Customs Undersecretariat called the Israeli statements tantamount to “complete nonsense”.
As one of the original co-founders of the Free Gaza Movement, and a passenger on the first boat, I can vouch for the fact we were never asked to take any kind of weapons or any kind of military personnel to Gaza. We alone selected our passengers, whose names all appeared on our website http://www.freegaza.org. Every passenger was known to us and we make certain all were peace activists with a proven record of non-violence. As for Gilad Shalit, as a prisoner of war he was not our concern, nor did we consider it appropriate to comment on the issue of prisoners (especially, in my own personal opinion, because there are thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, and only one Israeli imprisoned in Palestine.)
We were at one point contacted by lawyers claiming to represent Shalit’s family and supporters, requesting that we deliver a letter to be given to Shalit. We responded in the affirmative, but the lawyers, never contacted us again. (We realized later this was a publicity stunt, when we saw claims that we had refused to deliver such letters for Shalit, which of course were total lies.)
hi mariapalestina,
I remember that business about the Gilad Shalit letter ~ just another case (as per all the Palestinian concessions made in past peace negotiations, as revealed by the Palestine Papers) of the Israelis not being willing to take yes for an answer.
I was wondering, is there anywhere online a full accounting of what flotilla aid actually made it into Gaza, and what didn’t?
We have tried to find out what happened to the materials stolen by the Israelis from the flotilla boats, as well as from the SPIRIT OF HUMANITY which was boarded by Israeli pirates in international waters on June 30 2009, and from the Lebanese cargo boat TALI which was siezed in the same way in February 2009. Also the so-called “Jewish boat” IRENE which was siezed in September 2010. Israel continues to hold these boats and we have never been able to get reliable information about the fate of the cargo. We suspect Israel kept everything it considered useful, and after damaging or destroying everything else it delivered token anounts of items it considered kosher to be sent to Gaza.
One problem is that arrangements had been made for everything on all the various boats to be delivered directly to various NGO’s and hospitals in Faza, and all of this had been coordinated ahead of time. When Israel agree to deliver some of the items it had confiscated we learned that much was too seriously damaged to be of use (such as the wheelchairs from which they removed the batteries), spoiled because it had expiration dates before Israel got around to delivering it, or in some cases they wanted to just dump the stuff randomly without anybody in Gaza having an opportunity to coordinate unloading it or finding out where it was supposed to go. Clearly this was deliberate on Israel’s part, and further proof that they can’t be trusted.
Thanks maria,
Since Israel is claiming it delivered the aid (under UN supervision!) it might be useful – time permitting – for Free Gaza to issue some sort of report or paper/press release on the fate of the Flotilla cargo in particular, maybe timed to come out in the month before the next flotilla in May 2011 (is Free Gaza involved in this effort?)
Part of the reason Israeli PR succeeds is because they tell lots of half truths that casual observers can’t decode – eg claims by Israel that they said they would deliver the “humanitarian aid” if the Flotilla had redirected to Ashdod (which Israeli propagandists say, on this thread even, means the flotilla’s humanitarian intentions weren’t genuine because they turned down Israel’s offer) – which in reality meant they’d deliver items that were on the list of ~100 permitted items (I linked above to an Israel Gov spokesperson making just this distinction).
It would be very useful to have an authoritative response when such propagandists say “Israel delivered the aid”, and the media might also find it useful as they start reporting on the latest aid effort they’ll inevitable look back on the 2010 raid.
I will try to get that information from our people in Ireland who have been following up as best they can, particularly because our cargo boat, RACHEL CORRIE, was our “Irish” boat.
And yes, Free Gaza is one of the groups participating in the next flotilla. Free Gaza is still the only group which has been successful in getting boats into Gaza.
As for why we have always turned down Israel’s “offer” to deliver our cargo to Gaza, it is in true we don’t trust Israel. However, from the beginning when we first started planning to sail boats to Gaza, our position was that Israel had been claiming that Gaza was free. So we admittedly intended to challenge their claim, realizing we were in a win-win situation. If they didn’t stop us then we would have opened the door for others to follow. (And best of all, we would be in Gaza — which is exactly what happened.) If they stopped us, as they threatened to do, it would prove they were lying when they said Gaza was free.
Certainly they no longer claim Gaza is free.
Last March the North Koreans apparently sank a South Korean ship. They didn’t stop and board it, they fucking sank it. They didn’t kill 9, they killed 46.
Now , of course no-one, including Israel wants to be compared with the North Korean regime. But look at the outrage and villification directed at Israel over the flotilla, and the absence of any such campaign regarding the North Korean action.
@jon s As every responsible parent has to tell every spoiled brat sooner or later, I don’t care what the other kids do, you are responsible for what you do.
mymakx, Just to be clear, I wasn’t trying to justify the action based on the claim that the N.Koreans did worse. I was just trying to compare the relative wordwide reactions.
Shabbat Shalom
No, the main purpose of the blockade is to prevent the Hamas terrorists from bringing in military supplies and trained personnel, and also, perhaps , smuggling Gilad Shalit out.
False on both counts. McClatchy reported that internal Israel documents revealed that the blockade was to impose economic warfare. Nothing to do with security.
The siege was in place before Shalit was captured.
Humanitarian supplies were indeed prevented from entering Gaza, especially medicines.
Very little of what we sent with the flotilla was ever delivered to Gaza. Hundreds of wheelchairs were tossed around and broken, and some were finally sent to Gaza without the batteries that were needed to make them of any use. There was a lot of talk but very little action. Not sure where all the toys, notebooks, pencils and crayons ended up, but unlikely they reached the children in Gaza. I was on the FREE GAZA, the very first boat to reach Gaza. We took hearing aids, basketballs, a few musical instruments, baby food and clothing, toys, notebooks, pencils. I knitted some hats for preemie babies and they made it to Gaza, but not through Israel. Why would anybody trust Israel? Fortunately I know and work with some wonderful Israelis, both Jewish and non-Jewish, so I know that all Israelis aren’t thieves and murderers like those responsible for pirating humanitarian boats to Gaza and killing innocent passengers.
Last March the North Koreans apparently sank a South Korean ship. They didn’t stop and board it, they fucking sank it. They didn’t kill 9, they killed 46.
On the contrary Mr Post Zionist, but actually, they didn’t.
link to articles.latimes.com
The US blamed North Korea for it, but the South Koreans were noticeably mum about the incident. All evidence points to the likelyhood that it was friendly fire. Had it been the real thing, it would have led to a war.
jon, look at the outrage and villification directed at poor little Israel over the cold blooded massacre of innocents on the flotilla? is that what you mean? you’re right..no one, including north korea wants to be compared with the zionist regime.
thanks for the link shingo
Shingo and Annie, Thanks for the update, I wasn’t aware of those doubts concerning the sinking so, as far as that goes, I stand corrected.
Nevertheless, I think that I made a valid point as to the international reaction at the time, when it was widely assumed that the N.Koreans had done it.
“Cold blooded massacre of innocents” is certainly not an accurate description of the flotilla incident.
Point taken Jon,
But the international reaction was tempererd largely by the delayed repsonse from South Korea and even the half hearted response from the US.
I don’t know how else one would describe shots to the back of someone’s head from point blank range.
read it and weep. there’s a video of a soldier standing over him pumping bullets into his brain. he was holding a camera. no amount of ‘certainly not an accurate description’ is going to gain any traction on the world stage.
face it. they murdered innocent people.
I made a valid point as to the international reaction
i sense there is a disconnect here. israel is running the longest running (present tense) brutal human rights violation on the planet. not NK. we’re focused and we’re not stopping til it’s over. comprende? there is NO comparison. none.
“I think that I made a valid point as to the international reaction at the time, when it was widely assumed that the N.Koreans had done it.”
First, the South Korean ship was a warship manned by Navy sailors, not a civilian ship delivering humanitarian aid.
Second, the incident occurred during one of those provocative military exercises which SK holds as close to NK as it possibly can without going over the border. (Though SK shells do land in NK waters.) The aid flotilla was well out in international waters, not doing anything to provoke the Israelis (aside from existing) and doing no harm to anyone.
Those factors account for the difference in reaction.
But if you are into the comparison business you can try comparing the Israeli Navy treatment of the civilians in the flotilla with the Iranian Navy treatment of those Royal Navy sailors they captured.
RoHa March 11, 2011 at 6:18 am
IN Iranian waters what’s more.
The sea boundaries there are pretty complicated and up for debate, but the Iranians certainly thought they were in Iranian waters.
Since we are planning to send another flotilla in a couple of months we will have to wait and see how Israel will respond. We won’t do anything differently, and we expect the MAVI MARMARA, still scarred by holes from Israeli bullets, to be part of the flotilla. In fact it is my hope I will be on the MAVI MARMARA myself. We have read that the IDF is training attack dogs to be lowered onto the decks ahead of the commandoes next time, and I certainly don’t look forward to that. But despite Israel’s threats and even knowing they are willing to commit murder in order to stop us, we refuse to be intimidated. Every time a boat is attacked, thousands more people ask to join the next flotilla. This is what Israel doesn’t seem to understand. We truly aren’t afraid of them. We know they can stop us, brutalize us, imprison us, kill us. So long as Gaza is not free we are not free.
“the IDF is training attack dogs to be lowered onto the decks”
Get some really tough ally cats to distract them.
Interesting suggestion, but of course the Israelis will then claim we were armed with terrorist cats and that they were merely defending themselves when they murdered us.