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.

"Peace Activists" Attack IDF

Late last night, the IDF boarded a fleet of "aid" ships that were aiming to break the naval blockade of Gaza. Israel had given several warnings not to do so, and told the group to dock at the port of Ashdod, where the supplies would go under security checks and then be taken to Gaza by land.

They refused.

Israel boarded with the intention of leading the ships to Ashdod themselves. According to reports, backed by video evidence, on one ship where the violence took place, the “peace activists” lay in wait for the IDF to board, then attacked the soldiers with axes, knives, chairs, metal bars, chains, tools and even guns - both their own, and that they had taken from IDF troops. It was only once the "peace activists" had started shooting at Israeli soldiers that the IDF opened fire. 9 activists were killed in the fighting. 

It is notable that the IDF managed to take control of the other 5 ships without having to use force. This would refute claims that the IDF acted aggressively first, and not in self-defence. This was a lynching attempt; a life-threatening situation where soldiers were shot at, stabbed, severely beaten, thrown overboard and down stairs, and a helicopter almost brought down.

As for those “aid” groups who organised the campaign, unsurprisingly almost all of them have links to terrorist organisations and/or have spoken out themselves in support of terror against Israeli civilians, most notably the radical Islamic organisation/humanitarian relief fund, the Turkish IHH, with it’s support of Hamas.

Elder of Ziyon meanwhile, lists instances of where ‘Free Gaza’ has shown itself to be more in support of Hamas than of the Palestinian civilians.

Of course the Guardian’s article on the ‘Free Gaza’ movement fails to mention any of this. 

And that, I suspect, is a sign of how the reporting will be over the next few hours, days and weeks, with facts about the radical and antisemitic "aid" groups, and the nature of their attack on the IDF soldiers - who did what any other country would have done - being omitted and so stirring up another worldwide anti-Israel and antisemitic frenzy.

The next question is, will the US and the new UK government get caught up in it, or will they look at the whole picture?

Updates: More information from Honest Reporting.

Live blogging at Muqata, including more video evidence of the attack.

Reuters misidentifies injured Israeli soldier in picture as pro-Palestinian activist.

BBC report: shows the footage of an Israeli soldier landing on the deck and immediately being beaten with a metal bar by an activist. Narration over the video? "Activist fights back". Never mind the evidence staring us in the face, if the Arabs say that Israel attacked first, it must be true.

Witness account: describes how Israel exercised restraint on board the ship, until they had no choice but to open fire when their lives were endangered by the attackers - sorry, "peace activists".

Nick Clegg And Human Rights

Soon after David Cameron became Prime Minister, his deputy, Nick Clegg has already demonstrated how close we could be to disaster if he was PM instead of Cameron.

Whilst the Conservatives have pledged to replace the Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights, Nick Clegg has spoken out on his support of the Act - specifically that a terror suspect and al-Qaeda operative should not be deported to Pakistan in case he would be "mistreated" by the authorities there. This is despite the fact that the Immigration Commission has stated that he "poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom and that... it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."

As Telegraph writer Nile Gardiner says, "Clegg's left-wing instincts are completely wrong on this issue, and the PM [Cameron] must act before British lives are lost as a result of the Liberals' political posturing." 

Yet again an example of how lefties seem to apply the idea of "human rights" more to terrorists than to the civilians they target as their victims. Twisted, but hardly a surprising attitude from Nick Clegg, who has ruled out military action against Iran, and wants Israel disarmed.

Guest Post: Can't Take a Joke - Part 2

Oh great, now it’s well known Scottish comedian Frankie Boyle who accused the BBC (yes that BBC) of being “cowardly” and “cravenly afraid of giving offence” after they censored him for his Israel jokes.

Here they are: 

“I’ve been studying Israeli Army Martial Arts. I now know 16 ways to kick a Palestinian woman in the back. 

People think that the Middle East is very complex but I have an analogy that sums it up quite well. If you imagine that Palestine is a big cake, well…that cake is being punched to pieces by a very angry Jew.” 

You know, the jokes aren’t nice but I’m sure a lot of us might let them slide or at least not come out with the harshest condemnations because we know that for comedians, no subject is off the board to poke fun at. Frankie Boyle is no exception, in fact, there is no limit to how low a level he will stoop to get a laugh and that includes jokes about Jews, Arabs, politicians, terrorists and disabled people - no one is spared!

But it is more the content of his letter to the BBC Trust ranting at the ‘injustice’ caused by the censoring of his antisemitic / anti-Israel jokes that causes us real offense: 

“I think the problem here is that the show’s producers will have thought that Israel, an aggressive, terrorist state with a nuclear arsenal was an appropriate target for satire. The Trust’s ruling is essentially a note from their line managers. It says that if you imagine that a state busily going about the destruction of an entire people is fair game, you are mistaken. Israel is out of bounds.“

Yes, he just openly called Israel an Aggressive, Terrorist State with a Nuclear Arsenal!!! I swear to the ordinary reader you would think he was talking about Iran (“we will wipe Israel off the map”) or North Korea! How is that okay? Then he says that we are destroying an entire people as though it’s our 9-5 day to day jobs.

He then continues: 

“The BBC refused to broadcast a humanitarian appeal in 2009 to help residents of Gaza rebuild their homes. It’s tragic for such a great institution but it is now cravenly afraid of giving offence and vulnerable to any kind of well drilled lobbying.” 

Yup the great Israel lobby, that powerful beast which leaves news organisations such as the BBC and The Guardian quaking in their boots should they dare mention a single negative word in the same sentence as the word ‘Israel’ or ‘Jew’. Really? The BBC is afraid of the pro-Israel lobby? Well that didn’t stop them writing a hundred articles condemning Israel in the past year since the defensive war, Cast Lead.

And then of course it leads to apartheid: 

“The situation in Palestine seems to be, in essence, apartheid. I grew up with the anti apartheid thing being a huge focus of debate. It really seemed to matter to everybody that other human beings were being treated in that way. We didn’t just talk about it, we did things, I remember boycotts and marches and demos all being held because we couldn’t bear that people were being treated like that." 

Yes it’s just like South-Africa was! Arabs can’t live in Israel (there are 1 million in Israel alone), they can’t vote (there are three Arab parties in the Israeli Knesset - Hadash, Balad and United Arab List), they cant buy homes in Israel (Arabs live in every city in Israel) and they can’t work in Israel (Arabs own shops, restaurants and drive taxis just like Jews do).

But where is this Israel-hatred from Frankie Boyle stemming from? A documentary of course! 

“A few years ago I watched a documentary about life in Palestine. There’s a section where a UN dignitary of some kind comes to do a photo opportunity outside a new hospital. The staff know that it communicates nothing of the real desperation of their position, so they trick her into a side ward on her way out. She ends up in a room with a child who the doctors explain is in a critical condition because they don’t have the supplies to keep treating him. She flounders, awkwardly caught in the bleak reality of the room, mouthing platitudes over a dying boy. 

The filmmaker asks one of the doctors what they think the stunt will have achieved. He is suddenly angry, perhaps having just felt at first hand something he knew in the abstract. The indifference of the world. ‘She will do nothing,’ he says to the filmmaker. Then he looks into the camera and says, ‘Neither will you’." 

There may be truth in the above paragraphs but it definitely does not paint the whole picture. How can there be a new hospital and not enough medicine to treat patients? That’s a contradictory statement right there. Even in Gaza, within the UN programmes and medical supplies allowed in on a daily basis, the only reason for a shortage of aid is when it is stolen by the Hamas terrorist regime.

Frankie Boyle counts the renowned self hating, liberal, extreme left leaning Noam Chomsky as a major influence - “Everybody should read him, and quickly” and another self hater Gilad Atzmon counts himself as big fan of Boyle’s stance.

I do not know much about the documentary that Frankie Boyle saw to convince him that Israel is the enemy but I do believe that when you have an empty hole in your head and you allow it to be filled with the hate spewing bile that comes from a Noam Chomsky book and a likely biased documentary, in addition to being ignorant and not being objective or bothering to find out the whole truth and reasoning behind a story - then of course you’re going to become anti-Israel.

The sad thing is that there are too many people who allow the media to feed them a pile of hate-based lies about Israel and aren’t pro-active enough to find out the truth.

Shame on you Frankie Boyle, but not a surprising outcome.

Vote Conservative! - Update - Says Simon Cowell!

This coming Thursday, the UK will be voting for prime minister in the general election. The three main leaders and their parties are: Gordon Brown of Labour, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, and David Cameron of the Conservatives.

I'm hoping for a Conservative victory (or vic-Tory, ha ha), for several reasons, the main one being... I'm a righty, obviously. More reasons in more detail in the Times editorial on why they're backing the Tories. They also explain why voting for Nick Clegg would be a bad idea. Julie Burchill writes in the Jerusalem Post on why she wouldn't vote for any of the parties, but in her view the Tories stand out as the much-lesser of many evils - the worst of which appears to be Nick Clegg, who called for the EU to isolate and sanction Israel for daring to defend itself after eight years of rocket attacks on its citizens.

Another reason why voting for Clegg could be disastrous is addressed in a letter to the Times from senior defence and intelligence chiefs, who warn how Lib-Dem policies would leave Britain exposed to terrorism, for example by their ruling out military action against Iran's nuclear project.

It is interesting to see who the papers are backing in the election. So far only the Evening Standard hasn't revealed who they are backing. The Mirror meanwhile, is supporting Labour, whilst all the other papers are supporting the Conservatives - except for two, who are backing Nick Clegg... can you guess who they are?

It's the Guardian and Independent of course! (and their Sunday counterparts). Is it a coincidence that the two most Israel-hating newspapers are supporting the most overtly Israel-hating party leader?

Comparing their attitudes to Israel with that of the Times, it is clear that the Times' choice is the right one. I have pointed to a lot of instances of bias in the Times reporting of Israel, with James Hider being the biggest culprit. However, compared to the Guardian their reporting is a masterclass! - and more importantly, they are unusually fair towards Israel in their editorials, not to mention truthful, compared with the other papers. For example, in one, even whilst criticising Israel, they acknowledge that 

"Israel is not a rogue state... It is an accountable, democratic, transparent nation, and fighting to remain one amid challenges that few other nations ever have to face."

In another editorial, the Times called the Goldstone report biased and observed,

"First, there is no equivalence between the actions of Israel in self-defence and those of Hamas in seeking to destroy it. Second, the UNHRC is not a credible forum. It is... notorious for bloc voting and bias against Israel. And finally, the Goldstone report itself is imbalanced: it focuses on Israel's faults rather than its right to protect itself."

In contrast, it is not surprising for an Independent editorial to echo the sentiments of the disgraceful excuse for a journalist, Robert Fisk.

The Guardian meanwhile, invent their own evidence to try and delegitimise Israel, are prone to exaggeration and lack of important context, and "mistakes" whenever they mention Israel, are in denial about their anti-Israel bias and even antisemitism, and allow George Galloway a column to rave about Iran's "sophistication", whose views on Iran don't seem so different from their own, where they seem to be more concerned about a potential Israeli strike to neutralise Iran, than about Ahmadinejad's threats to "wipe Israel off the map".

Which brings me to Nick Clegg, who has ruled out a strike on Iran, meaning that if he was in power and it came to a point where Israel has no choice but to act, (and I, as well as Israel, sincerely hope it won't come to that point), then Israel's supposedly close ally Great Britain, would not only not give it's support, but Clegg would probably even call for Israel to be disarmed - as he has already done previously when Israel was acting in defence of its' citizens.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Nick Clegg and Israel, and dealing with antisemitism.

I know I talk a lot about Israel, but England is still home for now, and most of the time I feel free and safe here. But the thought of Nick Clegg as prime minister of this great and tolerant country does not bear thinking about.

...Although it would hurry my plans to move to Israel!


UPDATE: If I'd had any doubts about my decision to vote Conservative, they'd have been completely eliminated with the news that the one-and-only Simon Cowell is backing them too! The man with his head screwed on very tight, despite being a millionaire, says:

"Choosing how you vote should not be a snap verdict based on a few minutes of television. We are not talent show judges picking pretty-sounding contestants now... Nick Clegg is made for TV."

Whatever you agree or disagree with Simon on, you can not find fault with that quote. Most of the people voting for Clegg are voting for him, not his party. Because they jump on the words "change" and "fairness", and they like him dissing the other two parties, but weren't actually paying attention to his policies. The ones who say they like his policies are probably talking about his anti-Israel stance, because that's one of the main things he stands out for, that and his unique combination of smugness, hypocrisy, and naivety.