Would the South be free if Freedom Riders had experienced a media blackout in the north?

Israel/Palestine
on 19 Comments

Why isn’t the New York Times doing this cutting-edge  journalism? Harriet Sherwood of the Guardian goes out with Gaza fishing boats to see what they are up against, and as Israeli gunboats close in on them inside Gazan waters she files a bunch of frightening tweets. If the Times did this kind of journalism, it might actually help the poor fishermen of Gaza! A couple tweets. From today!!


IDF coming very close. Sirens. Banking hard causing a lot of backwash for our small motor boat…


6 or 7 troops on bridge, all armed. We have cut our engines…

IDF still firing on Oliva the human rights boat. They are trying to drown it says my translator…

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

19 Responses

  1. Bumblebye
    July 20, 2011, 11:12 am

    Who knows, maybe the NYT put someone out there – but if so, are they not more likely to be on the IDF gunboat? Just as there must have been numerous reporters disdainful of the disruption caused by the Civil Rights activists.

  2. sandy
    July 20, 2011, 11:20 am

    “close in on them inside Gazan waters”

    There is no shuch thing as “Gazan waters”. Only nations can have territorial waters, disputed non-national territories can’t.

    • James
      July 20, 2011, 11:48 am

      i guess they can’t be in armed conflict either then and all the bullshit about a breach of international marine laws is just that – bullshit.. i like how israel wants to have everything and those who oppose it nothing… your post is testimony to this type of thinking…

      • sandy
        July 20, 2011, 1:14 pm

        Sure it can be in an armed conflict – with Hamas.

        And Hamas happens to rule the territory knows as “Gaza”. It doesn’t have any legal basis according to int’l law (like, say, nationhood) to rule Gaza, but in actuality it does rule it.
        It doesn’t in actuality rule the sea though, only the land. And not being a nation, it doesn’t “automatically” get any legal authority over any part of the sea, either. Simple as that.

        Now back to the “armed conflict” issue:

        Why on earth should the fact that Hamas rules without proper legal authority/nationhood give them any legal advantages, like being allowed to attack a neighboring country without becoming subject to the legal consequences of being in an armed conflict?

        That wouldn’t make any sense. Thats why *real* legal experts[1] regard the conflict between Israel and Hamas as an armed conflict and consequently the maritime blockade as legal – even though the (rather dated) int’l law wasn’t originally written with non-national terrorist groups in mind.

        ===========
        [1] (i.e. reputable, non-partisan university law professors specializing in maritime law, as opposed to NGO activists without any legal education who think they can just call something “illegal” only because they personally thinks it’s wrong…)

        • James
          July 20, 2011, 3:30 pm

          sandy quote :”Sure it can be in an armed conflict”

          sandy, saying “it can be armed conflict” and “it is armed conflict” are obviously very different… in order for israel to claim a breach of international marine law, it has to be armed conflict….

          as your first comment attests – it isn’t presently armed conflict, so israels claim the flotilla is a breach of international marine law is a lot of bullshit and nothing more..

        • mig
          July 20, 2011, 4:35 pm

          sandy:

          “And Hamas happens to rule the territory knows as “Gaza”. It doesn’t have any legal basis according to int’l law (like, say, nationhood) to rule Gaza, but in actuality it does rule it.”

          ++++ Thats called democratic process, how hamas got power in gaza. Ever heard such a phenomenon ?

          “It doesn’t in actuality rule the sea though, only the land. And not being a nation, it doesn’t “automatically” get any legal authority over any part of the sea, either. Simple as that.”

          ++++ Oslo accords. Try that if it helps your hiccup.

          “Why on earth should the fact that Hamas rules without proper legal authority/nationhood give them any legal advantages, like being allowed to attack a neighboring country without becoming subject to the legal consequences of being in an armed conflict?”

          ++++ International law. Right to resist occupation, even with arms.

          “That wouldn’t make any sense.”

          ++++ Only if person is equipped with tunnel vision. Tell us, how long have you been lived in fantacy that only people with state has some rights and those who dont have, doesnt ?

          “Thats why *real* legal experts[1] regard the conflict between Israel and Hamas as an armed conflict and consequently the maritime blockade as legal”

          ++++ Like Israel first experts ?

          “even though the (rather dated) int’l law wasn’t originally written with non-national terrorist groups in mind.”

          ++++ Oh Sandy Sandy. Look here, terrorist have been around a long, long time. Different thing is that these terrorists have national aspirations, not just doing attacks because it is so much fun. Makes any sense ?

    • eljay
      July 20, 2011, 12:07 pm

      >> There is no shuch thing as “Gazan waters”. Only nations can have territorial waters, disputed non-national territories can’t.

      I can see why Israel opposes Palestinian nationhood. Without a nation of Palestine, there is no such thing as:
      - Palestinian territorial waters;
      - Palestinian resources;
      - Palestinian land;
      - Palestinians.

      And if you have no Palestinian anything in the region, there’s no occupation, there’s just the Promised Land “Beacon Unto the Nations” Democracy of (Greater) Israel!

      Praise Be To Gawd (and San Remo)!! :-p

    • Djinn
      July 20, 2011, 12:36 pm

      For the overly semantic Zionists out there, how about we just call them NON Israeli waters?

      • sandy
        July 20, 2011, 1:15 pm

        True, they’re not Israeli territorial waters.

        But the IDF does maintain a legal maritime blockade there.

      • eee
        July 20, 2011, 1:26 pm

        We prefer to call them “waters to which Iran attempts to smuggle weapons”. All the rest are distinctions that don’t matter.

        • Duscany
          July 20, 2011, 3:50 pm

          I’ve often wondered why it’s legal for the Israelis to bring in f-16s, bunker buster bombs and cluster bombs but illegal for the Palestinians any weapons with which to fight back.

        • mig
          July 20, 2011, 4:37 pm

          You mean where resistance of alien occupation is perfectly legal ?

        • eljay
          July 22, 2011, 9:39 am

          >> I’ve often wondered why it’s legal for the Israelis to bring in f-16s, bunker buster bombs and cluster bombs but illegal for the Palestinians any weapons with which to fight back.

          It’s because bullies don’t like fair fights, because the rapist doesn’t want the victim to have the means to drive him off her.

          Immoral, supremacist thugs like eee are perfectly happy to have their country continue to oppress Palestinians and steal their land.

    • justicewillprevail
      July 20, 2011, 1:25 pm

      Such a dishonest reply. Why don’t you just say that Israel has decreed that Palestinians, the original inhabitants of Israel, have been decreed ‘non-humans’, and as such can be shot at, harrassed and made sport for the brave boys of the IDF Klan.

    • CigarGod
      July 21, 2011, 9:29 am

      So…the gas reserves off Gaza belong to Gaza…but the water that sits on top of the ocean bottom does not belong to Gaza?

  3. James
    July 20, 2011, 11:33 am

    the nyt is not interested in helping the fisherman of gaza or informing their readship of much!

    they are interested in trumped up ideas of war in faraway countries and listening to the judy millers of the media world more then anything else…

    the nyt doesn’t do cutting edge journalism…

  4. Les
    July 20, 2011, 12:29 pm

    The Times would forfeit its leadership in the Israel Lobby if it were to cover the actions of Jewish Voices for Peace.

  5. chet
    July 20, 2011, 2:39 pm

    While this Israeli endangerment and harassing is going on, keep in mind the Israeli coveting of those offshore natural gas fields.

  6. DICKERSON3870
    July 20, 2011, 5:54 pm

    RE: “Would the South be free if Freedom Riders had experienced a media blackout in the north?” ~ Weiss

    From: Josh Ruebner, US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation
    Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 11:24 AM
    To: dickerson
    Subject: John, Tell U.S. Not to Veto Palestine UN Membership in Security Council

    TAKE ACTION: Tell U.S. Not to Veto Palestine’s Membership in UN Security Council – link to salsa.democracyinaction.org

Leave a Reply