Al Qaeda No. 2 In Crazy Rant Which Kind Of Makes Sense

In an audiotape on an Islamist website, Al Qaeda's number 2 terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri lets rip all his pent up feelings in a hilarious rant that rivals the infamous French Taunter's "English pig-dogs" tirade in Monty Python:

"Poor Obama comes to Kabul pledging that Taliban will not return to power... You threaten the Taliban; you are just a puppet of the tyrants"

... I blow my nose at you, sons of a silly person! 

He does makes an interesting comment though, that "These Arab Zionists are more dangerous than Jewish Zionists". At first glance, this is a load of nonsense, spoken by a psycho. None of the Arab leaders he challenges are anything close to being Zionists. And neither they nor the "Jewish Zionists" are "dangerous" in the ways which he refers to.

But his fear (which he disguises as contempt), is somewhat understandable. Why should he be scared of Jews? (whilst he's cowering in his cave). The Arab leaders he mentions aren't as obviously Islamist and terror-supporting like Ahmadinejad, so it's no wonder he's scared they're turning into Zionists, and he's worried of their betrayal!

It all makes sense when you look at it from the angle of Israel's enemies. On the one hand, there are the barbaric, mass-murdering Islamist terrorists. And on the other, are the "intellectual" types, the liberal-lefties, the Western leaders - our supposed "allies" - and self-hating Jews. These are the people we are supposed to identify with. "Normal" people. The people who fight for democracy and freedom and equal rights. 

But more and more, they are the people who are denying Israel it's right to self-defence and existence, and we are becoming increasingly alienated as age-old antisemitism reproduces itself as discrimination against Jews as a nation rather than a religion. When our friends and allies start to turn against us then it really is a dangerous time for Jews and Israel.

So even though al-Zawahiri is very deluded in his fears - Israel is the one thing the Arab world seems to agree on, in that they want to destroy it - if the Arabs were to turn into Zionists, it would indeed be disastrous for the anti-Zionists! Now the Jews on the other hand, we make up less than 1% of the world population, we're nothing to worry about!

Terrorists Caught

About a month ago, an Israeli policeman was shot dead, and two injured, in a Palestinian terror attack. It has now emerged that the terrorists were arrested, and were none other than Hamas operatives, in a smaller terror group.

They had been involved in terror activities for years, stockpiling weapons including the rifles that had been used in the attack, holding shooting training sessions, and plotting other attacks to kidnap or kill Israeli civilians or security officials, for which they bought disguises to look like religious Jews.

Members of the group had previously been jailed for terror-related activities.

Probably the most shocking part of it all is this:

"Two weeks before the attack, a leader of the cell accompanied his daughter to Hadassah Ein Kerem Hospital in Jerusalem, where she underwent surgery to remove an eye tumor. The surgery was funded by an Israeli aid organization."

But when you think about it, maybe it's not so shocking after all. Two weeks ago, EoZ linked to a story on how an Israeli reporter broadcast a news appeal to help raise funds for medical treatment for a dying Palestinian baby. 

At that time, the news was generally filled with stories of the rockets that were falling on Sderot, so the reporter Shlomi Eldar was not hopeful. But an Israeli Jew, whose son had died in the army, donated $55,000.

During the operation though, the mother confessed to Eldar that she would want her baby to carry out a suicide attack in Jerusalem. She told him "we will all sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Jerusalem. We feel we have the right to it". Eldar demanded "Then why are you fighting to save your son's life, if you say that death is a usual thing for your people?".

The woman replied:

"For us, life is nothing, not worth a thing. That is why we have so many suicide bombers. They are not afraid of death... After Mohammed gets well, I will certainly want him to be a shahid... For us a shahid is a tremendous thing."

The disregard for human life, of their own, their children, and needless to say of Jews, is obviously not so unusual for the Palestinians. But these two incidents really illustrate a sick irony, that these Palestinians want to kill Jews even when their own childrens' lives are saved by Jews. If they won't be turned by that, then what hope is there for peace?

Confirmed: British Jews Love Israel!

The Institute for Jewish Policy Research have released the findings of a survey of British Jews' attitudes to Israel. 

JPR's executive director, Jonathan Boyd concluded that:  

"Jews in Britain are pro-Israel and pro-peace. Their hawkishness on some issues is typically motivated by a clear concern for Israel's security, while their dovishness on others reflects a deep-set desire to see the country at peace".

Results that stand out include:

- 90% believe that Israel is the ‘ancestral homeland’ of the Jewish people

- 72% view the security fence/separation barrier as ‘vital for Israel’s security’

- 72% agree that the Gaza War was ‘a legitimate act of self-defence'

- 87% agree that ‘Iran represents a threat to Israel’s existence’

More from Robin Shepherd.

There are some disappointing findings, such as that 67% want to give up land to the Palestinians and that 74% are opposed to the expansion of settlements, but it is heartening to see that on the whole British Jews are clearly very supportive of Israel and of the necessary actions taken to ensure the security of Israeli citizens. 

Although the sample of 4081 people may not be representative of British Jews from every category, it does confirm one thing: that the lefty self-haters are indeed in the minority. Jewish support for Israel is as strong as ever.

Flotilla Updates

From Israel Matzav - finally there is confirmation of links between the Turkish "charity" IHH, and Turkish government officials.

And the IDF has released the English version of the videos confirming what happened in the flotilla incident, as I previously blogged:

Hoffman Exposes Anti-Israel Judge

In January 2009 during Israel's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, seven people broke into a factory in Brighton, England, and caused £180,000 of damage, later confessing to their crime.

But this week, after their trial, they walked free. The factory was exporting military equipment to Israel, and their defence was that although they had committed a crime,it was justified as they were doing so in order to prevent the greater offence of Israeli 'war crimes'.

The judge, George Bathurst-Norman, said "You may well think that hell on earth woud not be an understatement of what the Gazans suffered in that time." He was born in Arab Jaffa and was brought out of retirement to try this case. The local MP Caroline Lucas supported the defendants, claiming that "all democratic paths had been exhausted" before they destroyed the factory. Lucas had previously blamed Israel for the Mumbai massacre, and supports boycotts of Israeli products. More on the judge's bias on EoZ blog.

Yet again Israel is denied it's right to self-defence, this time because of corruption in British courts. As Robin Shepherd puts it:

"Bigotry against the Jewish state is now so entrenched in contemporary British society that juries have begun to acquit criminals merely if they can show they acted against Israeli interests. No other defence is necessary."

Now Jonathan Hoffman has fisked the evidence, the 87 page transcript of the judge's summing-up of the case - comments he made to the jury before they decided to acquit the defendants. Through a combinaton of the omission and distortion of facts, blatant lies, and antisemitic analogies, the judge succeeded in manipulating the jury with his demonisation of Israel. Hoffman observes that Bathurst-Norman was more a member of the defence's legal team than the judge, and this is no exaggeration. Read Hoffman's brilliant piece in it's entirety; that the biased, hate-filled rantings that he examines come from a judge is almost beyond belief.

On the whole affair, Melanie Phillips concludes: 

"for a judge to abuse the task of summing up evidence to a jury by turning it into a platform for his own personal prejudice is startling even by the standards of Britain's degraded and vicious Judeophobic public discourse." 

"If the senior judiciary does not institute action against this judge for such a gross abuse of his position, we shall have to conclude that they too see nothing wrong with it - and thus have abandoned all claim to objectivity, fairness or due process in the justice system. We shall have to conclude that, for the English judiciary, there is now one law for the gentiles and another law for the Jews."

Hoffman calls for action: 

"The bottom line is simple. Judge Bathurst-Norman behaved more like the Defence Counsel than the neutral Officer of the Court that he was supposed to be. The role of a Judge - far from advancing his own political agenda - is to clarify points of law to the lay members of the Jury. Bathurst-Norman's comments reveal that he has an extreme anti-Israel agenda. This case must therefore be declared a mistrial and retired under a neutral Judge. And Bathurst-Norman should be prevented from ever presiding over such a case again."

"Please complain to the Office for Judicial Complaints here. [Use the above quotes from Hoffman and Phillips to help form your argument]. The case is R vs Robert Nicholls and others at Lewes, case number t20097131. Please also ask your MP to write to the Justice Minister and Lord Chancellor, Ken Clarke."

Flotilla Mistakes... But Not What They Think

According to retired general Giora Eiland, the IDF investigation into the Gaza flotilla incident found that:

"Mistakes were made in the various decisions taken, including within relatively senior ranks, which contributed to the result not being as we would have wished... In this inquiry we found that there were some professional mistakes regarding both the intelligence and the decision-making process".

At this point, some people will be thinking, 'go on... get to the war crimes bit', but sadly for them the mistakes that the IDF made weren't that juicy. For myself and a lot of other people though, the mistakes were glaringly obvious from within hours of the incident, once the commandos' accounts started to come out, reinforced by the IDF's video evidence. 

So what mistakes does the report accuse the navy of? Only this:

"Failing to sufficiently consider the possibility that the commandos would encounter violent resistance when attempting to keep the ships out of Gaza... [and] not cooperating sufficiently with the Mossad in gathering information ahead of the flotilla's arrival".

The commandos were not expecting, did not want, and were not prepared for a violent battle. And they certainly didn't initiate it. As we've seen from the videos, the IDF boats alongside the Mavi Marmara were attacked even before the soldiers were able to board. In fact the report explains that the only reason the soldiers had to be lowered on board from helicopters was because the boats came under attack and the ladder was cut.

They had barely landed on the ship before they were overcome, their anti-riot paintball guns useless against the mob of activists armed with knives and other weapons. Not only were the soldiers shot at first by the activists, and with their own guns that the activists took from them - starrting with only the second soldier to descend, who was shot in the stomach - but a gun and bullets were found on board that were not Israeli weapons. Eiland said the commandos "only used force when they were under immediate danger to their lives", as they were instructed, and all the evidence confirms this.

If the IDF soldiers had been more prepared from the start, more aggressive even, if they had boarded with a more offensive mentality, then perhaps the nine activists may not have died. The soldiers may have found a way to take over the ship by force, but without their own lives being endangered so that they had no choice but to shoot.

Apart from those mistakes though - made by senior officials, not the soldiers themselves - the report concludes that:

"the Navy Commando soldiers operated properly, with professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness and that the commanders exhibited correct decision making... the use of live fire was justified".

So we know that the IDF's actions on the flotilla were justified. Last week we saw Hezbollah's preparations for war: stockpiling weapons in civilian areas. And now, in an amazing CNN report, we can see Israel's preparations for war: how to minimize civilian casualties.

The report is amazing for two reasons: first, how much effort Israel puts in to minimize civilian casualties, when the enemy are so determined to do the opposite, deliberately using their people as human shields, and second, the fact that CNN reported this at all; it is very rare to get such an insight into the evil tactics of Israel's enemies, and into the morality of the IDF in having to fight these people under such difficult conditions.

The question is whether this will count for anything when the next war comes.

UPDATE: Just Journalism analysis of the way the media reported the IDF investigation. Unsurprisingly, it seems that for the Guardian and Independent, the main findings of the investigation - namely that the activists were armed and attacked first - were just side points.

CNN Fires Terrorist-Supporting Editor

CNN have been forced to fire their senior editor of Middle East affairs, Octavia Nasr, over this tweet she posted on Sunday:

"Sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah's giants I respect a lot.."

Honest Reporting wonder what it is about Fadlallah that Nasr respects - his support for Hezbollah, who comment on "the necessity for the destruction of Israel", his links to terrorism, or perhaps his Holocaust denial. 

HR also point to how on his death bed, when asked by a nurse what he needed, he answered, "for the Zionist entity to cease to exist". And one of his last acts before he died was to issue a fatwa authorising the use of suicide bomb attacks.

Whilst Nasr's Lebanese background should not have been a problem in hiring her as senior editor of Middle East affairs, her being a terrorist sympathiser is.

Nasr blogged her apology: 

"It was an error of judgment for me to write such a simplistic comment and I'm sorry because it conveyed that I supported Fadlallah's life's work. That's not the case at all." 

She then rambled on trying to explain why she does and doesn't respect Fadlallah.

This wasn't enough for CNN though, who fired her, explaining that 

"At this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward".

What they mean is that, although she's been working for them for 20 years, as a pro-Palestinian, pro-Hezbollah, and very obviously anti-Israel reporter/editor, her bias wasn't obvious enough to raise questions about her loyalties and commitment to journalistic integrity - until now.

The Augean Stables blog has more on her reporting. AS also links to the Guardian's sickening obituary by Ian Williams, who really rivals Nasr's tweet in mourning the terrorist Fadlallah as a "moderate" deserving of respect. The Guardian obviously take their own standards a lot less seriously than CNN, and so would doubtlessly be more likely to promote Williams to Middle East Editor than they would to fire him for writing such a loving obituary for a terrorist.

UPDATE: Elder of Ziyon links to another fan of Fadlallah, this one Britain's ambassador to Lebanon, who wrote on her blog on the official British foreign office website, that "The world needs more men like him".

The result? The piece was removed and she wrote a very insincere "apology", almost identical to that of the CNN's Octavia Nasr. More on this from Robin Shepherd.

On the subject of Hezbollah, EoZ highlights the evidence that even whilst there currently is no war between Israel and Hezbollah, Hezbollah are committing war crimes, storing weapons near schools and hospitals in civilian villages, deliberately using the residents as human shields.

Turkey And Islamism

In an interview with the Times today, Turkey's President Abdullah Gul says:

"I consider it very wrong to interpret Turkey's interests with other geographic regions as it breaking from the West, turning it's back on the West or seeking alternatives to the West. Turkey is part of Europe."

However, the Times points out that Turkey's "interests with other geographic regions" includes welcoming Iran's President Ahmadinejad, who both denies the Holocaust and wants to create a Holocaust, by "wiping Israel off the map"; congratulating him on his fraudulent election victory; voting against UN sanctions to try and halt the Iranian nuclear programme; supporting the terrorist organisation Hamas - as "respecting the choice of the Palestinian people in Gaza", and preparing to host Sudan's war criminal President al-Bashir at an Islamic conference until the EU objected. 

On the flotilla incident, for which Turkey is demanding an apology, compensation, and for Israel to agree to an international inquiry into the incident, Gul asks:

"If an army of a state kills your people in international waters, how would you react?" 

The Times though refers to those killed as 'civilians' (at least not 'peace activists') and fails to mention the Turkish government's support for the flotilla and for the IHH, the radical Islamic "charity" that sent the largest ship, the Mavi Marmara - on which there was no humanitarian aid, and many of the activists, with links to terrorism, brutally attacked the IDF soldiers before they even landed on the ship.

So really, the question should be, "If a government-supported flotilla of terrorists and terrorist supporters was going to break your country's security blockade, how would you react? And if they ignored your warnings not to approach, and then stood ready wielding knives and batons, and then attacked and overcame you and your fellow soldiers when you boarded, how would you react?"

The Turkish politicians are not speaking or acting for the secular majority of their population. And if they are, many of those will have been manipulated in their thinking by their government. But there will be many Turks who are opposed to their Islamist government; most will probably be anti-Israel too, but at least opposed to the terror regimes that their government supports.

In an open letter to Turkey's PM Erdogan (on Harry's Place), a Turkish-American Muslim citizen asks:

"Mr Erdogan, do you even care about the ordinary, normal Muslims of your own country and the world? If you do, then why have you successfully established such frightening friendships and contacts with some of the most dangerous and brutal dictators of the so-called Islamic world?"

"These countries need genuine democracies, freedoms, and liberation from Islamism... how do you sleep at night, Mr Erdogan, when you officially invite the genocidal maniac Omar al-Bashir to Turkey... responsible for butchering hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Did it ever occur to you to send some 'humanitarian ships' to Sudan?"

Read the whole letter, it really paints a picture of what Erdogan and his government are doing in Turkey and how it effects the Muslims who yearn for a peaceful, moderate existence in their country.

Gaza News And Latest Flotilla Backlash

Elder of Ziyon highlights that as Israel has increased the amount and variety of aid going in to Gaza, rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel have also increased.

In other news from Gaza, terrorists have, for the second time in two months, burnt down an UNRWA childrens' summer camp, both times handcuffing the camp's guards. Last time they also left behind a note threatening to kill John Ging, UNRWA's Gaza director, and other UN officials.

Ging's reaction was to praise Hamas for their response to the incident, and to seemingly blame Israel for extremism in Gaza, indicating that it is because of the blockade. Melanie Phillips points out that 

"It is Hamas that has to be isolated and defeated if a start is to be made in slowing down the rate of extremism". 

She observes that the view of the UN, Britain, US and EU is that 

"the way to stop more extremism being generated in Gaza is to provide more aid, encouragement and legitimacy to the extremists". 

What they're doing is "supporting the extremism which makes the lives of Gaza's Arabs such a misery" - and then placing the blame on Israel.

One thing Israel can, for once, be rightly blamed for, is Turkey's $400 million loss in the tourism industry due to the holiday cancellations of about 100,000 Israelis. (*thanks to Elder of Ziyon for the link). One Turkish tourism company which expected to bring 17,000 Israelis to Turkey this year, has so far only had 200 Israeli clients, having to pay $1.1 million to hotels for cancelled reservations, and incurring a total loss of almost $2.5 million due to all the cancellations.

Well, what did they expect when their Prime Minister openly supported a ship of extremists who attacked Israeli soldiers, and then accused Israel of war crimes when the soldiers defended themselves - completely ignoring the IDF's video evidence that refutes that.

In a new Just Journalism study, they highlight just how much Israel's footage was ignored by the UK media. They discovered that the Times, Telegraph, and Financial Times gave the footage the attention and detail it merited - and through that, countering the activists' claims that the IDF attacked first. Just Journalism conclude that the Guardian and Independent "severely under-reported" the footage, and when it was mentioned, it was dismissed as Israeli propaganda. But then the Guardian and Independent usually do leave out Israel's side of the story so this comes as no surprise.

Support Israel: If It Goes Down, We All Go Down

In a fantastically blunt op-ed in the Times today, Spain's former prime minister from 1996 - 2004, Jose Maria Aznar, urges people to "Support Israel: If it goes down, we all go down". On the flotilla incident, he observes:

"In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

He points out that Israel's legitimacy should not be a question, that Israel is "a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology" and that "it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances... the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception."

Whilst Israel is so often viewed as a threat, Aznar acknowledges that the real threat is "the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny", and Israel is the world's first line of defence against this. The whole article is brilliant; and it gives me hope and faith that if Aznar can see and spell out the truth so clearly, perhaps a small number of open-minded people can see it too once they read the piece. Here is the best bit:

"To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction... To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears. This cannot be allowed to happen."

So he was motivated to start a Friends of Israel initiative. He explains:

"It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself."

When you look at all the Israel-bashers who are so certain in their own morality, so sure that they're right and Israel is wrong, so confident that they know the answer to peace, and so blind of their own racism and antisemitism - and then ask the simple question, through all of their beliefs: Do you believe in Israel's right to exist and defend itself - the answer, if they looked deep inside themselves, and were brutally honest, would be no. 

Many people are open about this: "get out of 'Palestine'"; "there is no Israel"; "Zionism must be defeated"; and those people are mostly branded extremists. But the truth is probably most Israel-bashers feel that way, and they might not be open about it beacuse they'd fear being called antisemites, even though that's what they are.

There is no answer to antisemitism. Jews always have and always will be victims of baseless hatred. The only question is how and why antisemites express their hate through Israel-bashing. The answer is in an article Chas Newkey-Burden linked to on his blog, by Leon de Winter in the Wall Street Journal.

De Winter shrewdly observes that there is a "deep need... to call the Jews murderers" even when they're so obviously acting in self-defence, as with the flotilla. 

"This is why the Palestinians, as 'victims' of the Jews, are more important than the numerous Muslim victims of Muslim extremists; this is why millions of other Muslims living under worse conditions than the Palestinians hardly get any mention in the media; this is why Gaza is compared to the Warsaw Ghetto or Auschwitz. By calling the Israelis Nazis, the original Nazis have been legitimized."

There is not much that can be done about antisemitism and antisemitism that is disguised as anti-Zionism - except to expose it. And the way to do that is by asking the question that Aznar has evoked:

Do you believe in Israel's right to exist and defend itself, or not?

As long as people do not, then indeed if Israel goes down we all go down. And as any religious person will know, this is prophecised in Ezekiel 38-39.

Umm... what was I saying about hope?!

Israeli Policeman "Mysteriously" Shot Dead

The Independent gets awarded a point for at least reporting the attack, even if the way they did it was a bit suspect:

"an Israeli policeman was shot dead and two others were injured while their vehicle was driving in the Hebron area. The attack was the first fatal shooting of Israeli security personnel in the West Bank for over a year. No group had admitted responsibility by last night and no one had been arrested."

And obviously, if a group didn't admit responsibility, you can't just say "Palestinian gunmen" could you, because that might make it look as though Palestinians are aggressive sometimes.

Originally a faction of Fatah's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade had claimed responsibility for the terror attack, but Fatah's armed wing later denied any involvement. Then a group calling themselves the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla Martyrs" claimed responsibility, saying it was just the beginning of it's actions in response to the flotilla raid.

Apart from the Independent I have not seen that any British newspaper reported the murder - even the Times, who the day after had a double page on Gaza.

Possible reasons why it wasn't reported:

 - Yehoshua Sofer was Israeli
 - He was Jewish
 - He was 'just' an Israeli, Jewish policeman

It would seem that if a person is Jewish, Israeli and either Jewish or Israeli and in a uniform, their life is seen as worth less than others'. And their death by an act of terrorism? Not newsworthy. Not when you can go on about the Gazans being denied items that would then be stolen by Hamas to build weapons or bunkers.

Bias, Testimony, Terrorism, and Coexistence Through Medicine

Just another regular week for Israel:

- Reuters cropped pictures of injured Israeli soldiers to remove weapons and blood from the images.

- There was no humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara, and what was on the other ships was in bad condition. Hamas have refused the aid anyway.

- The captain of the MM has spoken out on the IHH activists' preparations to attack the Israeli commandos.

- A Palestinian was shot dead today after he drove into a group of Israeli police officers, injuring four.

- A Palestinian boy injured by a poisonous snake bite was taken to Jenin hospital where they were unable to help him. His father took him to Israeli Emek hospital, fearing they would be ignored, where a team of Jewish and Arabic doctors saved his life.

Terrorists Or Peace Activists?

The IDF has released the names of passengers on board the Marvi Marmara with links to terrorism. With all the evidence available, through testimonies, pictures and video footage, this should come as no surprise.

In stark contrast to their attack on the IDF in the first flotilla, is the behaviour of the peace activists on board a 7th ship that the IDF took to Ashdod yesterday. 

Before that, Free Gaza co-founder Mary Hughes told the Jewish News:

"We were sorry to see the people felt motivated to defend themselves. We ourselves would not do that. We would probably just sit down and expose ourselves and let [the Israelis]  beat us to death."

In the event, this did of course, not happen. There was no need. This time the activists did not lynch the soldiers and so the soldiers did not need to defend themselves.

As one passenger put it,"They did not use force with us. There was no necessity to use force against us."

But nobody could put it better than Netanyahu himself: 

"Today we saw the difference between a sail of peace activists, with whom we don't agree but honor their right to express a different opinion, and a hate sail organized by terrorism-supporting violent extremists."

                          

                                                             

Eyewitness Accounts

Here are two eyewitness accounts, the first from an activist, quoted in the Times:

"'I went up on to the deck and saw boats and dinghies, bristling with guns and military, speeding towards the ship. There were helicopters above us, and gas and sound bombs were being used... There were then gunshots and the first passenger was fatally wounded. He was brought to the back of the deck but he’d been shot in the head.'

Ms Colborne said that the captain then announced that live ammunition was being used, and that the passengers should stop resisting."

But she fails to describe at exactly what point the activists were "resisting". As we've all seen from the footage, it was not "resistance" but a pre-planned attack.

Meanwhile, Israeli Sgt. 'S' was the 15th commando to land on the ship. Here's his account:

"'When I hit the deck, I was immediately attacked by people with bats, metal pipes and axes'...

Looking to his side, he saw three of his commanders lying wounded – one with a gunshot wound to the stomach and another with a gunshot wound to the knee. A third was lying unconscious; his skull was fractured by a devastating blow with a metal bar.

He pushed the wounded soldiers up against the wall of the upper deck and created a perimeter of soldiers around them to begin treating their wounds, he said. He then arranged his men to form a second perimeter, and pulled out his 9 mm. Glock pistol to stave off the charging attackers and to protect his wounded comrades. The attackers had already seized two pistols from the commandos, and fired repeatedly at them. Facing more than a dozen of the mercenaries, and convinced their lives were in danger, he and his colleagues opened fire, he said. S. singlehandedly killed six men. His colleagues killed another three."

Those 9 activists were killed in combat - a fight that they had started. They were not innocent bystanders, nor were they "peace activists". They were murderous terrorists, who were killed as a last resort by soldiers whose lives were in danger. The IDF acted in self-defence.

More Video Evidence Of "Peace Activists'" Attack

The IDF has released more video evidence of the "peace activists'" attack on the soldiers. 

This is the chilling moment when they realise they're facing live fire.

This one shows the soldiers being attacked before they've even boarded the ship.

Even Seth Freedman, who has previously shown himself to be quite the ignorant self-hater, says Israel is not to blame in this incident:

"there is not an army on earth that would not allow its soldiers to respond with force to neutralise a life-threatening attack on their fellow troops... all the kneejerk Israel-hating in the world won't absolve the activist aggressors from their share of guilt for the horrific events that unfolded today".

He generously states,

"When Israel's wrongs are brought to light, they deserve condemnation as much as those of the Palestinians, but that does not mean automatically that in any situation the default position ought to be Israel is guilty until proven innocent."

Meanwhile CiF Watch takes apart the Guardian's editorial and article on those "peace activist" "eyewitnesses".

And the Washington Times sees the truth.

Flotilla: Media Reaction

The Guardian’s editorial today is predictably biased, comparing Israel to Somali pirates, commenting “no Nato warships will in fact be heading for Israel. Perhaps they should be”; and calling Israel a pariah state because of its military action. Israel is the only state in the world called pariah for defending itself. 

The Guardian seems to mock the idea that Israel was met with “pre-planned violence” (their quotations), and then contradicts that by blaming Israel wholly for supposedly placing “themselves in a situation where they lost control and provoked a riot, the Israeli navy [saying] they were forced to open fire to avoid being lynched”. 

Just Journalism observes further contradictory statements in the Guardian’s article: 

“On the one hand, The Guardian portrayed such violence as inevitable, saying, ‘What did the commandos expect pro-Palestinian activists to do once they boarded the ships – invite them aboard for a cup of tea with the captain on the bridge?’ However, immediately after this, the piece cast doubt on whether Israeli commandos had, in fact, faced any real threat, saying of a Greek man, purportedly shot by Israel, ‘Presumably he, too, was threatening the lives of Israeli naval commandos.’"

In answer to the Guardian’s question – what did the commandos expect the activists to do – well, I would suggest they followed the example of the passengers on the five other ships that Israel took control of, without the need for force. Surrender, and not try to foolishly start a war with the Israeli army. From literally miles away the activists knew exactly what would happen. They deliberately refused to go to Ashdod because they wanted a confrontation; they intended to inflict maximum damage on the soldiers with the weapons they had at their disposal – kill if they could – knowing that Israel would have no choice but to retaliate forcefully to prevent their own soldiers from being killed. All as part of their battle in seeking to delegitimize Israel and deny it’s right to defend itself.

The Guardian then gets even more ridiculous with this statement: 

“There was nothing on board those ships that constituted a threat to Israel's security, so Binyamin Netanyahu's argument that his troops were acting in self-defence has no validity. They should not have been there in the first place.”

Well, to quote Jonathan Hoffman from his speech made in support of Israel’s right to self-defence,  

“Israel had every right to board the Mavi Marmara ship. Israel cannot allow unknown goods and people to enter Gaza. Gaza is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist regime that calls for the murder of Jews, the 'obliteration' of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist theocracy. In the past, Israel has intercepted weapons-laden boats headed for Gaza’s coast. No government allows unidentified people and goods to flout their border regulations and enter their countries freely. If these activists behaved similarly at passport and security control in the U.S. or any other nation’s shores, ignoring their official protocol and violently attacking security personnel, they would also have been stopped and arrested.”

The Guardian’s hatred for Israel is so strong that they believe Israel should just allow a ship potentially carrying weapons and terrorists into Gaza; and call for an end to the blockade, as Nick Clegg did knowing this would be dangerous to Israeli citizens, essentially dismissing all Israel’s security concerns as paranoia – and then express sympathy with the political isolation and pressure on “Hamas by insisting it recognise Israel before it is allowed to join a national unity government with Fatah.” How do they expect there to be peace whilst Hamas is bent on Israel's destruction?

On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the presenter John Humphrys echoes the Guardian editorial to Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor, asking:

“how would you react if you were sailing on a ship with old people and children on it, in international waters, perfectly legally, and out of the sky in the middle of the night a grouped of armed men landed on your ship – what would you do, welcome them in for a cup of tea?”

If I were on a ship with old people and children on it, I’d make damn sure not to breach a military maritime blockade. I wouldn’t ignore their numerous warning to divert to Ashdod. And if I did ignore them, I wouldn’t lie in wait to start a fight with them, because hopefully I’d have the sense to know they’re not looking to start a fight with me. But that’s just me. I just happen to value life. 

Humphrys then rivals the Guardian for most ridiculous comment of the day when he says “an iron bar is not the same as a machine gun... it’s not a weapon... a knife is not a weapon”. He says the incident was Israel acting disproportionately to “the slightest threat”. Well, really, the threat wasn’t even slight, because iron bars and knives aren’t weapons and are totally harmless, don’t you know. Just like those Hamas “homemade” rockets that have been falling today and for the last 9 years.

More reaction from the blogs on my side-bar, and live blogging again from The Muqata.

Flotilla Clash: Can You Handle The Truth?

Probably not.

It's been quite a grim day, but this article did give me a laugh.

Anti-Israel protestors demonstrated in Manchester and "surged the BBC's entrance, smashing its front doors. One man climbed to the top of the building to plant a Palestinian flag and there were at least three arrests."

"Talat Ali, 40, organizer from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign said: "This is a peaceful demonstration... we are not happy with the biased news given by the BBC".

Yet again we see that the people in these Palestinian rights and "peace" organisations don't really know the meaning of the word.

As for the BBC's reporting, from what I've seen they have been reluctant to embellish on the "peace activists'" attack, instead choosing (like all the other media outlets) to focus on Israel's reaction - even commenting on some footage that it shows an activist "fighting back" when it actually showed a soldier being attacked as soon as he had landed. To be fair though, the BBC - as it should - did give airtime to spokespersons from both sides, and showed footage of the battle - footage that doesn't lie; not only what the IDF filmed. 

I can only assume it is the BBC airing this footage that bothers these protestors, as it clearly shows IDF soldiers being brutally attacked before they retaliated, thus disproving claims that the IDF boarded with the intention to kill, and so enraging those who want to portray Israel as a terrorist state. They just can't handle the truth.

Guest Post: Flotilla - A Puppet Pulled By Many Strings

One of the main points in the flotilla incident that is causing such widespread outrage is that it was an aid ship where the battle took place. If it had been a ship of self-proclaimed terrorists the reaction probably would have been the same – although this scenario is unlikely, as terrorists usually like to hide among civilians in civilian clothing... how many of the “civilians” and “peace activists” on the ship were actually terrorists? Apart from the attackers who attempted to lynch and murder Israeli soldiers, we know the name of one – Raed Salach, head of the Islamic Movement in Israel.

But no one talks about that; instead, the running line is that Israel attacked an innocent humanitarian aid ship. Yet they completely ignored Israel's warning against breaching the maritime blockade, knowing that this would result in confrontation. A confrontation started by themselves, as Israel was not prepared for, and did not want to engage in a battle.

Israel allows over 15,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid into Gaza on a weekly basis. Yes, there are restrictions on certain materials such as metal which can be used for Kassam rockets, and concrete to build bunkers for Hamas terrorists. Israel had clearly stated that they were wiling to transfer all of the permitted aid if the flotilla were to simply dock at the Ashdod port without incident. 

So this was not just about the delivery of humanitarian aid. This was about making a political statement. Each organisation with links to the flotilla had plenty to gain from provoking an Israeli reaction. 

It is on the largest ship, the ‘Mavi Marmara’ which had 600 people on board and was sent by the Turkish humanitarian relief fund, where the main clashes occurred. The IHH is a radical Islamic organisation and although it runs legitimate aid programmes across the world, it also provides logistical, economical and moral support to the Global Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. It should be noted that the Turkish Prime Minister has been very vocal in his support for the flotilla and there have been indications that Turkey’s ruling party may be jumping on the bandwagon with its loud support for the Gaza flotilla and its huge outcry afterwards in an attempt to boost its standings within the Islamic world, and especially in Turkey where its ratings have taken a slump in the polls. 

Hamas, of course will be milking this political stunt for all its worth and will be very encouraged by the international condemnation which have already started with the call for a lifting of the blockade.  

Foreign Secretary of the UK William Hague:

"The closure (of access to Gaza) is unacceptable and counter-productive. There can be no better response from the international community to this tragedy than to achieve urgently a durable resolution to the Gaza crisis.

"I call on the Government of Israel to open the crossings to allow unfettered access for aid to Gaza, and address the serious concerns about the deterioration in the humanitarian and economic situation and about the effect on a generation of young Palestinians."

And then we of course have the nasty left wing “peace” organization, Free Gaza.

Free Gaza spokesperson Audrey Bomse, has admitted that the main purpose of the Flotilla was to make a political statement and break the blockade – not about delivering humanitarian aid. She claimed that she gave “legal training to everybody on nonviolent resistance” and then plays dumb and claims not to “know anything about the knives and axes or anything”. When pressed on the claims of live fire she says there is “absolutely no evidence of live fire” and that “you see the Israelis coming out of the helicopters shooting”. That’s kind of contradicted by the video footage that is being broadcast by the media worldwide that seems to show Israeli soldiers because beaten with iron bars the second they set down on the boat.

And this video released by the IDF spokesperson show in detail that the weaponry even included stun grenades and fire bombs. 

It is quite evident from this bloody mess that the Palestinian cause has been hijacked by so- called aid organisations and hostile parties in certain Governments to further their own political or ideological agendas. Even the international media are questioning the naivety and stubbornness of these aid organisations' unnecessary and fatal actions. They had only one intention in ignoring Israel’s warning – to initiate the battle – and knew there would be only one outcome – casualties of people who sought martyrdom anyway, resulting in international condemnation of Israel once more daring to act in self-defence, and a PR win for the Palestinian and Arab world.