Yachad And Sephardis

Unfortunately, as long as Yachad still exist and spew out self-righteous "pro-Israel, pro-peace" commentary (that manages to demonise Israel and push peace further away by absolving Palestinians of blame for the stalemate), I cannot ignore them. 

Yachad were riled by a blogpost on the JC website, stating "you almost certainly will not find much love for Yachad in any Sephardi community", as 

"Jews from Middle Eastern descent, after living for years among Arabs, tend to know slightly more about the people Israel are dealing with. They understand the Arab ideologies which lead to persecution, violence and death of Jews. They understand Israel's need to protect itself."

It is undeniable that a Sephardi Jew who has experienced Arab persecution (or indirectly through relatives) would likely be more concerned about security needs than anything else. However there are always exceptions in everything so of course many Ashkenazis with no experience of Arab persecution still understand Israel's security concerns, and do not support Yachad; and there will also be Sephardis, whose very existence may only be due to their ancestors joining almost 1,000,000 Jews in fleeing for their lives, who still don't get it.

Yachad were defended in a post on their blog listing countries from where their Sephardi supporters have origins. I don't think anyone was in any doubt about the fans Yachad may have from these countries: Egypt (the Muslim Brotherhood), Turkey (the lovely Erdogan, who after sending Israel a ship of terrorists initially let his people die rather than accept aid from Israel when hit by an earthquake), Iran (Ahmadinejad, who wants the whole of Israel "wiped off the map", not just the settlements).

What the blogpost fails to address is "Sephardi Spirit's" challenge: 

"let's see Yachad tackle the more thorny problems such as incitement against Jews in Palestinian school text-books, or the medieval-style antisemitism coming out of the mouths of Hamas leaders, and their point-blank refusal to accept the idea of a Jewish state in the region. Those are the real obstacles to peace... Yachad has done absolutely nothing to demonstrate any sort of commitment to fighting the delegitimisation of Israel."

Going back to my last post about Yachad, since I wrote it I've discovered more about Yachad's favourite news-source, 972 Magazine, who Yachad continuously endorse and defend. Richard Millet blogged last week about some of their writers; Larry Derfner, who was fired from Jerusalem Post for justifying the Eilat terror attack in August which killed 8 Israelis; Joseph Dana, who said that a third intifada would be "unproductive" (never mind the terrorism aspect), and made one of the most ridiculous claims I've ever heard, that "Almost everything we can accuse Hamas of we can find the equal and sometimes worse situation inside of Israel". Yachad can hardly be accused of endorsing this claim, though, as they seem to ignore the existence of Hamas altogether.

Yachad's Search For Themselves

The left-wing, supposedly "pro-Israel, pro-peace" group Yachad have professed a disclaimer on their blog that "the views of the bloggers do not necessarily represent the views of the organisation", presumably hoping that with all the criticism they have had so far, at least they won't have to take responsibility for the content of their blog.

Regardless, the last two blog posts very accurately do reflect Yachad's confused, contradictory viewpoint. Which is fair enough, it's their blog. 

Darren Cohen starts off by mocking the "3 Ds", delegitimisation, double standards, and demonisation "that have become the archetypal regurgitation of many within the higher echelons of many Zionist institutions". Then, after acknowledging "the hypocrisy of much of the criticism and indeed hatred Israel receives", he compares the treatment of Israel by its enemies to Yachad's plight, applying the 3 Ds to Yachad, as though no criticism of them can be legitimate!

Cohen states that: 

"To safeguard the future of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State, it needs to act urgently to ensure that a viable two state solution is actualized and that the dream of peace can become a reality. This line of thought is now widely accepted by the mainstream and is nothing new. In spite of this, Hannah [Weisfeld] and the organisation she represents are still demonised as naïve at best and anti-Zionists at worse."  

Despite what Cohen may think, Yachad's critics are not anti-peace, or against the two state solution. We're just against what Yachad thinks is the right way to achieve this. Cohen has very shrewdly observed our concerns about Yachad - are they naive or are they anti-Zionist? It's hard to tell, and similar to the question we ask of a lot of Israel-bashers: are they ignorant, or are they antisemitic? There's another possibility, which I think applies to many Jewish critics of Israel - cowardice. Understandably many Jews are overcome by a need to fit in with society's majority to avoid being a target, and if that means having to be critical of Israel, so be it.

Cohen is offended by the accusation of 972 Magazine (who are strongly endorsed by Yachad) being pro-Hamas, "a slanderous and unsupported accusation", but he's obviously not done his research. 

On 972, Palestinian Aziz Abu Sarah wrote that Hamas’ “decision to reconcile with Fatah indicates their support of the PLO’s new approach [the bid for statehood]. Hamas has no better ideas to offer the Palestinian people on how to end the occupation. It had to make a choice between the status quo or actively working with Fatah and the other Palestinian factions on creating a Palestinian state.” Then he criticised that “The Israeli government ignored that Hamas had been giving clear signs of its willingness to accept to the two-state solution.” Israeli-American writer Mairav Zonszein, seemingly forgetting that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organisation found it "perplexing" that they would condemn the killing of Osama Bin Laden, and wondered why they didn’t suggest instead that he should have been tried. (as though they privilege their own people with trials!) And it’s not only Hamas they support. Another writer, Roee Ruttenberg expressed support for last year’s flotilla, and the Turkish ‘charity’ who backed it, the IHH, who have links to terror.

Cohen then makes an extraordinarily absurd statement, that the double standards of Yachad’s critics were:

“highlighted by the fact that a leading member of the American Zionist Organisation wrote a piece criticising Israel’s government for allowing the Gilad Shalit prison exchange and yet no one bat an eye lid. Apparently, it is unacceptable to criticise Israel for being too ‘right-wing’, but to criticise the government for a ‘left-wing’ deal that the vast majority of Israelis supported is deemed acceptable.”

Gilad Shalit’s release was one of the most jubilant yet painful, emotionally charged events in Israel’s recent history. I have never in my life felt so torn in my emotions, so unbelievably relieved and happy that an Israeli soldier’s life was saved after five years of torture, but at the same time so grief-stricken for the families of terror victims who had to relive their horror all over again, sickened at the celebrations of terrorists with no remorse for their actions, and fearful for the future, for the safety of Israel’s citizens and soldiers, my family and friends in Israel, from Haifa to Jerusalem to Be’er Sheva. So I can understand those who were against the deal, even though, as I’ve explained, I supported it. I don’t look at it as a matter of politics, left or right wing; to me it was simply about taking the opportunity to save a life.

As for Yachad having “proven over and over again that it is a vociferous pro-Israel voice” and that “it is not acting to demonise or attack Israel”… where have they proven that? Because if I was ignorant of the conflict and got all my links from their Facebook and Twitter, I’d be worse than ignorant - I’d only know one half of the story.

Cohen’s second blog post again mentions the 3 DS, this time in describing how the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is harmful and counterproductive.  Despite this, he commends boycotts as “non-violent resistance to oppression”. Yachad’s official line is that they do not support boycotts, but they were also very much opposed to Israel’s proposed anti-boycott law.

Yachad would do well to clear up their own confusion and contradictions, and save their critics the trouble. 

Double Standards And Double Standards

A few stories to catch up on from the last month or so...

- First there’s the Silwan incident where Palestinian youths threw rocks at an Israeli in his car, forcing him to swerve to try and escape, in the process accidentally hitting two of the kids with his car. The MSM angle was of course something along the lines of “Jew Runs Over Innocent Palestinian Babies”. But Honest Reporting explain why the whole thing was almost certainly a set-up, with photographers from at least five different news agencies ready and waiting for an incident that they would then twist to fit their own agenda of Israelis = oppressors, Palestinians = victims.

- Another big October story was Israel’s new bill requiring candidates for citizenship to pledge allegiance to “the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state”, and the proposition to the Palestinians that they recognise Israel as a Jewish state (gasp!) in return for a settlement freeze. Abbas refused, of course, claiming that “the issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter [of negotiations]”. Which is a very strange comment to make. Who does he think he’s negotiating with, if not the Jewish state of Israel? How can there be negotiations if we don’t exist?

Just Journalism highlight the media’s hypocrisy in dismissing the loyalty oath as discriminatory, whilst at the same time supporting a state exclusively for Palestinian Arabs. In Israel’s declaration of independence, it is “abundantly clear that Israel viewed itself as the homeland for the Jewish people from its inception. The international community recognised the country on that basis. Should Israel’s desire in 2010 to retain its Jewish character be portrayed as so controversial?” After all, if we can’t be Jewish in Israel then where can we?

Just Journalism give the example of the Independent’s Adrian Hamilton, who claimed that the oath is an indication of Israel’s “fundamentalism”, identifying the problem as that “the more closely you define Israel as a uniquely ‘Jewish’ state, the less room there is for it to act as a co-operative member of a Muslim majority Middle East.” If that statement wasn’t outrageously contradictory and hypocritical enough in itself, then just a week after that he wrote about how “Multiculturalism needs defenders”, criticising that “as societies have turned inwards so they have also turned against the outsiders”, and that the debate about immigration in Europe is inherently racist. JJ observe that according to Hamilton’s typical leftist viewpoint, “while Europeans should be more tolerant of non-white Christians in their midst, the Muslim Middle East must be supported in its rejection of a Jewish entity in theirs.”

- Islamic Jihad have published photos on their website of when they were visited in Gaza by Turks. These were “peace activists” though, who had journeyed on board the recent “Viva Palestina” flotilla. “Peace acitivists”, remember. Who visited terrorists and then posed with them for pictures whilst holding machine guns and rocket launchers. EoZ publishes assurances from Islamic Jihad, wondering what all the fuss is about, that the activists were in no danger during the photo shoot, and that they were simply “photos of solidarity” with the Palestinians and their right to “resistance”.

Terrorism And Bias

In the third shooting attack in Israel in less than a month, a nine-month pregnant Israeli woman was shot at in her car today by Palestinian terrorists. Miraculously only wounded in her leg, the woman was taken to hospital where she had to undergo an emergency caesarian section, with her baby delivered in good condition.

The media continues to report on the situation in the Middle East by ignoring the continuous terrorist attacks and writing about how Israel is the object to peace, such as in today's Oberver editorial, which Chas Newkey-Burden nicely fisks.

Also big news is UNHRC's accusation of Israel committing "war crimes" in it's soldiers defending themselves from almost certain death at the hands of the lynch mob in May's flotilla incident.

Robin Shepherd tackles the BBC's standard bias in it's coverage of the UNHRC report; Just Journalism look at the other media coverage; and Elder of Ziyon exposes the omission and twisting of evidence in the UNHRC's biased report.

BBC Balance = Israeli Propaganda?!

On Monday night the BBC Panorama aired a half hour in-depth documentary investigating the events of the flotilla incident at the end of May.

The programme was ridiculously – for the BBC – fair and balanced, airing previously unseen footage of the incident - from the IDF, from the Mavi Marmara's security cameras, and taken by the activists themselves and uploaded onto a website called Cultures Of Resistance. They interviewed the head of Israel's investigation into the incident and IDF officers including those who were attacked when they landed on the ship. They also interviewed the head of Turkey's Islamist IHH "charity", the head of Free Gaza who organised the flotilla, and several activists who were on board the MM.

The programme was in no way pro-Israel, it was just balanced.  And yet people are calling it lies and propaganda. If it was pro-Israel propaganda then wouldn't they say that all of the activists were armed terrorists? And that Israel didn't kill anyone and was completely in the right? The truth was that Israel made some mistakes in planning the operation, and on the other hand that from the BBC's footage there was at least one activist on board who probably saved the life of at least one Israeli soldier. But all the evidence, footage and testimonies – fromboth sides – prove that Israel was acting in self defence from a barbaric pre-planned lynching. And there was simply no way for the BBC to suggest anything else. That must be why people are so incensed.

In one piece of footage, the IHH leader on board the MM declared to the activists "We're going to defeat the Israeli commandos... If you bring your soldiers here, we will throw you off the ship". Later he told Panorama presenter Jane Corbin, "If we organised another boat, and Israel attempted to illegally invade it, we'd use our right to passive resistance. We'd throw them into the sea." 

Before and after the incident, and in the documentary, numerous activists themselves openly stated that the aim was not to bring aid to Gaza but to break the naval security blockade. The Free Gaza coordinator on board, Lubna Masarwa, also confirmed this, in her interview with Panorama.

The documentary mentioned Hamas’ refusal to recognise Israel's right to exist and that they have fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians. Corbin also mentioned that the restrictions Israel imposes on what enters Gaza are to prevent the manufacture of weapons and bunkers. This must have irked the Hamas lovers who try to pretend it’s not a terrorist organisation.

Corbin refers to the Turkish government's support for Hamas, the government's links to the IHH, and the fact that the IHH has been accused of links to terror - although she does not mention the evidence that proves this. Should I complain to the BBC about this anti-Israel bias? Corbin interviewed Israel’s head of the flotilla investigation, saying the Turkish government knew about it and that Turkish MPs were going to join but decided in the end not to – but she adds that the Turkish government denies involvement.

I don’t think we’ve got to the “propaganda” bit yet.

Through testimonies and footage from both sides, the documentary pieces together what happened that night: Israel gave five warnings for the ship not to approach Gaza, offering to transfer the aid there through the Ashdod port instead. In response to the warnings, the ships made antisemitic and abusive comments to Israel by radio: "shut up - go back to Auschwitz", and "we're helping Arabs going against the US. Don't forget 9/11, guys". Corbin quotes that the organisers were unaware of the comments.

Panorama showed one activist say he wanted to die as a martyr for Gaza – there is footage that the BBC didn’t air of other activists also saying this. More footage showed the activists’ preparations for their attack, cutting metal bars from the ship to use as weapons, one activist confirming in clear language that their intention was to attack the soldiers if they boarded. Meanwhile the Israelis interviewed acknowledged their mistake in underestimating the violent behaviour of the activists, and the Israeli investigator was clear that whilst 40 IHH activists planned the attack, there were hundreds of innocent people on board who did not know what was going on.

Fair, balanced and truthful so far.

Then we see the activists begin attacking the Israeli soldiers in their own boats as they approached the MM, before they boarded the ship - the IDF responding with paintball guns. An Israeli commander said, "They were throwing at us stones and junk that they had on board the ship". An activist confirms this to the BBC, describing how "we threw chairs and anything we could find down on them."

Another Israeli commander describes how he was set upon and beaten as soon as he landed, flung over the side of the deck, clinging to the side as they clubbed his hands until he fell to the level below, then cornered and stabbed in his stomach. Video evidence confirms his account.

The IHH leader claimed that the activists were acting in self defence as the IDF were shooting from the beginning, but Corbin quotes the IDF’s dismissal that it’s impossible to fire whilst abseiling from a helicopter, and shows the chilling footage of the moment the unprepared Israelis realised they were under live fire. The Israeli investigator confirmed that whilst three stolen IDF weapons were fired on the soldiers, one non-IDF weapon was also used. Footage of the weapons that were found on board indicates that the attack was planned in advance.

Meanwhile, activist Ken O'Keefe spoke about the need to break the blockade and their willingness to employ "non lethal force" in self-defence. He described how he took the Israeli commander’s gun and emptied it, and described the scenes of the dead and wounded activists.

The most eye-opening footage came near the end though: an injured Israeli soldier, taken below deck – shielded by one activist from the others who wanted to finish him off.

Asked if the deaths were worth the attention on Gaza, Free Gaza's coordinator said "there is no resistance, there is no freedom without paying a price".

The BBC is finally balanced on an Israeli matter and yet people call it Israeli propaganda.

Chas Newkey-Burden fisks the Guardian’s critical review; Harry’s Place also does; as well as listing some of the “Islamists, Communists, [and] Nutters” that were infuriated by the programme (strange that it’s mostly terrorist supporting antisemites who didn’t like it). Even before Panorama was aired, the extremist Muslim Public Affairs Committee claimed: “No doubt, the BBC will once again be airing and spreading propaganda on Israel’s behalf. Enough is enough, we all know the truth of the terrorist attacks committed by Israel on unarmed peace activists.” ‘Unarmed peace activists’ haha!

They then link to the BBC’s response to the complaints, saying “This means your complaints have been noticed - well done!” – but the BBC defends Panorama, saying the footage was verified for accuracy, and that the footage and interviews came from sources on both sides of the dispute, ensuring it was fair.

News website Mathaba (who have written articles such as one perpetuating the blood libel that Israel was harvesting organs of Haitians), also accuse the BBC of broadcasting “Zionist propaganda”, supporting this with a bunch of lies such as that the programme never mentioned the MM was in international waters (it did mention this actually), that the people on the flotilla were “humanitarians” (they never stated their aim to was bring aid to Gaza; it was to break the blockade), that they “had the legal right to defend themselves in any way they thought fit” (footage and testimonies from both sides proved the activists attacked first, not in self defence), that “the only weapons they had to defend themselves were parts of the boat itself and kitchen utensils” (evidence shows they had at least one gun, and the ‘kitchen utensils’ were knives that didn’t actually look very kitchen-y. Also, we’ve already established they weren’t acting in self defence), that “the Israelis carried with them pictures and a list of those they intended to assassinate” (first I’ve heard of it), that the “go back to Auschwitz” comment was “down to Israeli editing” (it wasn’t), that “It was claimed one IHH activist said ‘he was prepared to die’ although it was abundantly clear that he actually said ‘If I die give a message to my loved ones’ (actually, he did say – abundantly clearly – that he was prepared to die and wanted to be a ‘shahid’ – martyr), and, their stupidest remark of all, that: “The IHH were described as having links with Terrorism although it was clear from the video footage who exactly the real terrorists were” (and I don’t think they’re referring to the activists who planned their attack and tried to murder Israeli soldiers armed with paintball guns).

There is yet more very telling footage from the ship (from EoZ) that wasn’t included in Panorama – it shows Israeli soldiers and a doctor wanting to take the injured activists to an Israeli hospital, arguing with an Arab MK who  repeatedly says “they don’t want to go”, whilst the doctor asks “so what do you want, do you want him to die?”

The answer to that question appears to be a big "meh".

Cameron: Sychophant Or Just Ignorant?

Last week on his trip to Turkey, British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said in his specch:

"The Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla was completely unacceptable... the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp."

Whilst this may just be a severe case of sucking-up to his Islamist hosts, it is deeply disturbing that Cameron would even go to these lengths to delegitimise Israel in the Arab world.

First he portrays Israel as the "attackers" in the flotilla incident, completely ignoring the fact that the activists attacked first, and the soldiers had to fight back in self-defence only once their lives were in danger. Worse, Cameron condemns Israel's actions in the flotilla, whilst not addressing the links between the Turkish PM Erdogan and his government, and the radical Islamic Turkish "charity", the IHH, whose members were the main cause of violence on the Mavi Marmara. Nor did he mention the links between the activists and terrorism. Or question the "moderate"* Erdogan's support for a flotilla of terrorists whose sole aim was to breach Israel's security blockade and lynch Israeli soldiers or die trying. (*Erdogan has also praised the Sudanese President and war-criminal Omar al-Bashir, which the Guardian seems to like).

Cameron also did not address why Israel needs a security blockade in the first place, why they would want to prevent the smuggling of weaopns into Gaza, and prevent would-be suicide bombers waltzing into Israel at will. How even though over 10,000 rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza over recent years, Israel still transfers over 15,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid into the strip every week, with the amount and variety of goods increasing all the time. Despite the fact that Gilad Shalit has been held in Gaza for over four years, denied Red Cross visits, his condition unknown.

Worst of all, whether Cameron actually believes that Gaza is a "prison camp", or whether he was just saying it to appease the Turks, the assertion smacks of antisemitism and is an insult to the people who died in the camps during the Holocaust, to the survivors of the camps, and to the millions of people globally who really are suffering unjustly in prison camps or under similar conditions.

Do prison camps receive 15,000 tonnes of aid a week? Do prison camps have swimming pools, shopping malls, luxury hotels and restaurants, markets?

If anyone is making Gaza a prison camp, it's Hamas, but Cameron does not acknowledge this. How they demolish Palestinians' houses, burn down the childrens' summer camps, bomb internet cafes, ban shops from displaying mannequins or pyjamas, ban women from anything from riding motorcycles to smoking nargila, and murder anyone they see as a "collaborator" or rival.

Cameron now has some major damage control, and it will be interesting to see when he deigns to visit Israel, how he will combine the sucking-up thing with his ignorant Israel-bashing.

Meanwhile, Just Journalism's Executive Director Michael Weiss has written an extensive article examining the links between the Turkish government and the radical Islamic IHH organisation.

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:

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.

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.

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.