In a move that surely would bring charges of severe violations of international law, Israel’s deputy Führer, er foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, suggested (Hebrew) that if Mahmoud Abbas continues his unity talks with Hamas, that the Palestinian Authority would become the “Terror Authority.”  He also argued that since Hamas, in conducting these talks, was seeking to strengthen the “infrastructure of terror,” Israel may have to severe its own ties to Gaza’s infrastructure, including its water and power.  On top of the siege Israel has imposed since 2006, this would create a humanitarian crisis of immense proportions.  Human beings simply cannot live without water, nor is life much above primitive standards without power.  One would also anticipate it might further reinforce charges that Israel has engaged in war crimes against Gaza during the 2006 war and continues violating international law by imposing immense suffering on the enclave’s 1.5 million inhabitants.

Among Ayalon’s other ‘acute’ observations is that Mahmoud Abbas’ refusal to schedule peace negotiations with Israel at the Quartet’s request marks the PA as the party rejecting peace (he called them “peace refusers”).  He spoke also about relations with Egypt and made the bold–and foolish–claim that peace with Israel would be a national priority no matter which party ruled Egypt.  Apparently, he didn’t hear about the cries during a Muslim Brotherhood rally in an Egyptian mosque last Friday, which weren’t terribly polite (putting it mildly) to Israelis or Jews in general.  But Ayalon did inform us about the unnerving claim, certainly based on compelling evidence which he for some reason couldn’t provide, that Iran’s Ayatollahs are spreading radical Islam inside Egypt and seeking to establish an Islamist regime there.  Given the fierce Sunni-Shiite divide between Egypt and Iran, it’s hard, nay impossible to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is welcoming Iranian interference in Egypt’s internal affairs.  I tell you, that Ayalon is one smart cookie and so learned in the ways of Islam.  His brilliance never ceases to amaze me.

On a slightly different subject, I just read that in a meeting with Abbas, the Norwegian foreign minister said that Israel’s refusal to transfer $100-million in Palestinian tax payments held by Israel amounted to “waterboarding” Palestine.  A vivid turn of phrase.

The UN will release the Palmer Report about the Mavi Marmara massacre tomorrow.  One of my readers has offered me an advanced copy  (thanks LL).  Though the report is written in extremely guarded, cautious language not meant overly to inflame passions on either side, it is clear that while it is critical of Israeli actions during the incident, it overwhelming endorses the underlying strategy Israel employs in pursuing its blockade.

But before I delve into this I wanted to examine some of the assumptions of the report with which I take strong issue.  It finds that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is legitimate as a measure in self-defense because it supposedly prevents bringing weapons into Gaza which may be used against Israel:

…Freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law.

This is a specious claim as Hamas imports all the weapons it needs through tunnels from Egypt to Gaza.  Further, Israel could maintain a much looser blockade which allowed all goods into Gaza by ship and provided for inspection of cargo to make sure they do not carry armaments.  I do not accept the premise of any blockade of Gaza, but if one wants to view it from Israel’s perspective it could easily review all incoming cargo and not embargo all shipping into the enclave.

Palmer argues that rockets and missiles from Gaza are a legitimate security threat because militants there “increased their effectiveness,” now being able to reach Tel Aviv. The fact that Gazan weaponry is highly ineffective and that no rocket has ever been launched from there that has reached Tel Aviv, seems lost on the members. Further, the report considers that 25 Israelis have died since 2001 from missiles and an “enormous psychological toll” has been inflicted on those living in southern Israel. There is no countervailing consideration of the thousands of Gazans killed and wounded in the same period and the “psychological toll” this has taken on Gaza’s 1.5 million residents. If the panelists had considered this they would understand more fully the crime that is the siege and why it is legal to protest against it by breaking it.

The Report uses a tortured methodology in considering whether the naval siege is legal. It decides that Israeli policy regarding land crossings is independent of the sea blockade (p.39). It does so by trying to argue that the land blockade predated the sea blockade by a year. What this does, is to allow the panel to treat the latter as a fact in its own right, having no bearing on the overall context of conditions in Gaza. It would be as if the Nazis laid siege to Leningrad by sea and land, and a war crimes investigation attempted to argue that the sea blockade was legal because it had little to do with starving  a million or two  Russians to death.  All that devastation was apparently caused by the land siege alone. I’m not arguing that the Stalingrad siege is of comparable severity to the Gaza siege. But I am arguing that a siege is a siege is a siege. When it has two components those must be taken together in order to understand the full context of the suffering they cause.

Free Gaza Movement broke Israeli Gaza siege, successfully sending two ships to Gaza, which arrived on August 24, 2008 (Hatem Moussa/AP)

There is also an inference, in discussing the land crossings, that they are sometimes open to Palestinians, when in truth they almost never are (and they were even more fully sealed during the period of the flotilla massacre). The panel seems to accept the IDF claims that the crossings are open when in fact they aren’t and nothing can cross.

Under international law, in order for a blockade to be legal it must be “effective.” As part of its argument, Palmer makes a telling, and major error:

There is nothing before the Panel that would suggest that Israel did not maintain an effective and impartial blockade. Ever since its imposition on 3 January 2009, Israeli authorities have stopped any vessel attempting to enter the blockaded area.

There seems to be a bit of hocus pocus going on here.  There was a Gaza naval siege before January 3, 2009.  Proof of the matter is that the Free Gaza Movement broke that siege on August 24, 2008 when Ehud Olmert was prime minister (a leader who seemed less inclined to shed the blood of peace activists than Netanyahu).  The news report confirms the existence of such a blockade:

Arriving to a boisterous reception, the international activists aboard the boats said they hope their symbolic breaking of the Israeli blockade on the territory is just the beginning.

Israel’s declaration of a naval blockade during Operation Cast Lead was a mere formality since such a state had existed before the war.  So I’m not sure what is the basis of Palmer’s distinction unless it’s merely to support its finding that the land blockade is separate from the sea, which we’ve already rebutted forcefully.

In fact, Sari Bashi, director of the Israeli human rights NGO Gisha, writes in an excellent critique published in Foreign Policy, that Israel has essentially imposed a naval blockade on Gaza not since 2009, but since 1967 (that is, for 44 years)!  If this information was available to an Israeli human rights professional should it not have been available to “eminent” specialists like Geoffrey Palmer and Alvaro Uribe, compiling a major UN report?

Returning to the 2008 running of the blockade, in that instance, when Israeli determined that political considerations forced it to allow a vessel to break the siege, it did so. The successful voyages then indicate that the siege again was not security in nature.  This invalidates the entire siege regimen under international law.

Further, the Report errs in dismissing the clearly evident claim by human rights activists that the blockade is not a security measure at all, but rather a political one that is meant to punish not just Hamas or Palestinians militants there, but the entire population because it voted in 2006 for Hamas to rule the Territories:

Important humanitarian considerations constrain the imposition of a naval blockade. For one, it would be illegal if its imposition was intended to starve or to collectively punish the civilian population. However, there is no material before the Panel that would permit a finding confirming the allegations that Israel had either of those intentions or that the naval blockade was imposed in retaliation for the take-over of Hamas in Gaza or otherwise.

Palmer proceeds with another specious argument with its claim that the land and sea blockades were independently implemented and hence cannot be considered collective punishment.  The land blockade did commence after Hamas’ 2006 victory in the PA elections.  As such it clearly was a political, and not security motivated act. The commission argues however that the sea blockade, begun a year later was not punitive. In fact, the sea blockade began after Fatah planned a political putsch, which Hamas pre-empted, in the process taking complete control of Gaza. The sea blockade that followed was a direct political and punitive response to the Hamas takeover.

The panel then considers whether the blockade was “proportional” to the danger it prevented to Israel. Here is some more twisted logic used to skirt the issue:

…A more difficult question is whether the naval blockade was proportional. This means to inquire whether any damage to the civilian population in Gaza caused by the naval blockade was excessive when weighed against the concrete and direct military advantage brought by its imposition…The specific impact of the naval blockade on the civilian population in Gaza is difficult to gauge because it is the land crossings policy that primarily determines the amount of goods permitted to reach Gaza. One important consideration is the absence of significant port facilities in Gaza. The only vessels that can be handled in Gaza appear to be small fishing vessels. This means that the prospect of delivering significant supplies to Gaza by sea is very low. Indeed, such supplies were not entering by sea prior to the blockade. So it seems unrealistic to hold the naval blockade disproportionate…

The fact is that Israel prohibited Gaza from building a port.  See this research by B’Tselem on the subject:

In the agreements signed by the parties since the beginning of the Oslo peace process, the sides repeatedly agreed to work toward building and operating a seaport in Gaza. In the summer of 2000, infrastructure work for the port began, but in October of that year, following the outbreak of the second intifada, Israel bombed the seaport construction site. As a result, the donor states ceased funding the project, and no work has been done on the seaport since then. In the AMA of November 2005, mentioned above, Israel agreed to allow renewal of the construction work. Moreover, in order to assure that foreign donors and investors would be willing to invest in the project, Israel promised that it would not strike the port again and would cooperate in establishing the security and other arrangements needed to operate it. To date, no action has been taken in this matter.

If Israel had not refused to allow such a port, Gaza would already have a seaport and airport. Barring that, had there been no sea blockade and only a land blockade, of course Gaza would’ve developed infrastructure necessary to replace the land crossings with port infrastructure. So arguing that a sea blockade is proportional because Israel had prevented Gaza from developing a seaport and Gaza didn’t use its sea coast to import goods, is circular, false reasoning.

There are some extremely awkward locutions which also betray a deep insensitivity to Gaza’s plight. Among them this:

…The Panel emphasizes that if necessary, the civilian population in Gaza must be allowed to receive food and other objects essential to its survival. (p.44)

Last I checked, human beings did indeed find it necessary to receive food and other objects essential to their survival. Is there any question about this in the minds of the Palmer authors?

The UN document is full of these “on the one hand, on the other hand” statements which allow it to claim that it is being fair to both sides when in actuality it is really being fair to one, which means it is being fair to none:

…The Panel emphasizes, however, the fundamental importance of the principle of the freedom of navigation, particularly in areas such as the eastern Mediterranean, and recommends that this be borne in mind by Israel with respect to the ongoing application and enforcement of its naval blockade.

They’ve just essentially nullified the principle of freedom of navigation related to Gaza and yet somehow believe they can chide Israel by reminding it that they must really learn to be fair and decent about implementing blockades.

To read this report, the motivation of the flotilla organizers to “generate publicity” (Palmer’s language, p.47) on behalf of Gaza’s plight would seem to be entirely treif. But again, this means you accept the contention underlying it, that the only legitimate reason to be breaking the blockade would be bringing humanitarian assistance to Gaza. I’ve made clear that I, and most human rights activists involved on this issue reject this thinking summarily. On the contrary, protesting both the siege, Israel’s Occupation, and Gaza’s humanitarian crisis are political issues tightly bound up with each other.

Another example of Palmer’s circular reasoning is its criticism of the IHH for not specifically warning passengers that they might be subject to violence if they participated in the flotilla. The fact that such a warning was lacking is used by the authors to blame the organizers for putting activists in harm’s way. But the plain fact of the matter is that the violence was caused by Israel and that contrary to the language of the report, violence was in no way predictable:

…There was no indication that violence was a risk despite the fact that the possibility of it was reasonably foreseeable.

Yes, in hindsight now the world understands better that Israel is willing to use lethal force on unarmed humanitarian activists. The world understands that Israel is capable of showing a depraved indifference to human life (more specifically, of Arabs and their supporters). But should the IHH have anticipated that Israel might use live fire on its ships even before they boarded them as the report speculates with some justifying evidence (p.53)?

In this passage (p.50), Palmer again presents the evidence solely from Israel’s point of view, pretending the flotilla was solely a humanitarian, and not political enterprise. It “buys” Israel’s contention that its offer to off-load the ship’s cargo in Ashdod and convey it to Gaza showed a good faith effort to resolve the impasse diplomatically. Nothing could be farther from the truth:

The Panel is satisfied that extensive and genuine efforts were made by Israel to facilitate the delivery of humanitarian supplies from the flotilla to Gaza thus obviating the need to challenge the blockade and thereby avoiding the prospect of violence.

At this point, Palmer has lost its moral bearings and any validity as a credible document.

Returning to the Mavi Marmara activists, in response to Israel’s political act of collective punishment, they took the counter-measure of protesting by engaging in a legitimate political act of their own–attempting to break the siege.  Here Palmer tries to have it both ways, but judges in the end that any political expression should take lower priority to Israel’s “legitimate” security concerns:

Although people are entitled to express their political views, the flotilla acted recklessly in attempting to breach the naval blockade.

The problem with this formulation is that those who participated in the Gaza flotilla flatly reject the premises of the argument in terms I noted above.  If the naval blockade is NOT a security measure then attempting to break it is not “reckless” but an expression of protest against an unjust, immoral Israeli policy.

The Report makes it easy on itself by conceiving of the Mavi Marmara flotilla project as a solely humanitarian enterprise.  In doing so, it is able to isolate any political element to the project.  Since the flotilla was, in its view, solely a humanitarian enterprise there is no reason the organizers should have persisted in breaking the siege.  They should have been willing to deliver the aid through Israel-approved channels.  This avoids the issue of the flotilla being a political expression (and a humanitarian one), whose goal was not just to deliver aid, but to subvert an illegal blockade and make the point to the world that Israel was wrong in inflicting it on Gaza.

I understand that writing this Report was incredibly difficult and that compromises had to be made in order to satisfy each side–or at least rile up each side as little as possible.  That is why there will be elements that will anger Israel and Turkey; and other elements that will please them.  But it’s important to understand that just because Palmer accepted certain points as givens, doesn’t mean that the public need do so.

Here are some of the more damning passages concering Israel from the introductory Summary:

Israel’s decision to board the vessels with such substantial force at a great distance from the blockade zone and with no final warning immediately prior to the boarding was excessive and unreasonable:

a. Non-violent options should have been used in the first instance. In particular, clear prior warning that the vessels were to be boarded and a demonstration of dissuading force should have been given to avoid the type of confrontation that occurred;

b. The operation should have reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding attempt became apparent.

…The loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable. Nine passengers were killed and many others seriously wounded by Israeli forces. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to the Panel by Israel for any of the nine deaths. Forensic evidence showing that most of the deceased were shot multiple times, including in the back, or at close range has not been adequately accounted for in the material presented by Israel.

There was significant mistreatment of passengers by Israeli authorities after the take-over of the vessels had been completed through until their deportation. This included physical mistreatment, harassment and intimidation, unjustified confiscation of belongings and the denial of timely consular assistance.

…States enforcing a naval blockade against non-military vessels, especially where large numbers of civilian passengers are involved, should be cautious in the use of force. Efforts should first be made to stop the vessels by non-violent means. In particular, they should not use force except when absolutely necessary and then should only use the minimum level of force necessary to achieve the lawful objective of maintaining the blockade. They must provide clear and express warnings so that the vessels are aware if force is to be used against them.

I was greatly disappointed that the recommendations for conciliation were entirely framed from Israel’s point of view and included a request that Israel express “regret” for the incident, pay victims’ families for their suffering, and that in turn Turkey resume full diplomatic relations with Israel.  All these were points accepted by Israel in previous negotiation.  But Turkey has rejected the offer of a message expressing “regret” and demanded a full apology, which Israel has refused.  It has also demanded that Israel end Gaza’s “imprisonment” in order for Turkey to normalize relations.

The Report itself noted a severe limitation that faced it. Nations were not compelled to cooperate or produce specific witnesses or documentation. The panel could not demand such information and so had to make due with what was offered. In fact, it could not approach any organization such as IHH independently, which severely limited the mandate and scope of the findings. Also, the panel relied heavily on the reports produced by Turkey and Israel. In the latter case, this is deeply problematic, as the Israeli findings were made by three heavily-biased individuals inclined to produce a report to maximize benefit to Israel and minimize damage.

In the case of Israel, which is known for attempting to spin virtually every element of its foreign and military policy, this would mean refusing to provide any information that made it look bad and offering any information that would make it look good. While all nations do this to a certain extent, Israel has perfected this to a high art.

Another oddity of the mandate of the panel was that it was not so much supposed to determine who violated the law, but rather how to resolve the dispute in as satisfactory a way as possible allowing the contending parties to move on:

The Panel will not add value for the United Nations by attempting to determine contested facts or by arguing endlessly about the applicable law. Too much legal analysis threatens to produce political paralysis. Whether what occurred here was legally defensible is important but in diplomatic terms it is not dispositive of what has become an important irritant not only in the relationship between two important nations but also in the Middle East generally.

…The legal issues, while a necessary element of the Panel’s analysis, alone are not sufficient. We must probe more widely. Were the actions taken prudent? Were there practical alternatives? In the wider context of the situation in the Middle East, are there steps that could be taken to improve the situation that the blockade deals with so that the existence of the blockade is no longer necessary? These are issues of importance to the wider international community.

The Panel has searched for solutions that will allow Israel, Turkey and the international community to put the incident behind them…A new diplomatic paradigm must be developed in order to move on. The Panel is particularly conscious of what the Secretary-General told us at the outset of our task. He told us that he counted on our leadership and commitment to achieve a way forward. Such is the purpose of everything that follows.

It follows therefore that the panel was not one meant to truly plumb the knotty questions presented by the Mavi Marmara attack. Rather, it was meant to give each side as much as it could in the hopes they could move on from there. As such, the mandate is hopelessly flawed. It would be as if South Africa appointed a commission to figure out how to tell each side of the apartheid dispute what it did wrong and what it did right in order to allow each side to move on without assigning any real blame to anyone.

Here are some further comments worth noting that impeach Israel claims regarding its attack:

The Panel questions whether it was reasonable for the Israeli Navy to board the vessels at the time and place that they did…The boarding commenced at approximately 4.30 a.m., before dawn had broken. The distance from the blockade zone was substantial—64 nautical miles. There were several hours steaming before the blockade area would be reached. Then there is the fact that the boarding attempt was made by surprise, without any immediate prior warning. The last radio warning had been transmitted at some point between 12.41 a.m. and 2.00 a.m.—at least two and a half hours prior to the boarding commencing. The vessels were never asked to stop or to permit a boarding party to come on board. No efforts were made to fire warning shells or blanks in an effort to change the conduct of the captains…Nothing was communicated [to the MM] about the immediate intentions of the IDF to board the vessels by force. (p.52)

And further:

The resort to boarding without warning or consent and the use of such substantial force treated the flotilla as if it represented an immediate military threat to Israel. That was far from being the case and is inconsistent with the nature of the vessels and their passengers…

It was foreseeable that boarding in the manner that was done could have provoked physical resistance from those on board the vessels.

…The Panel also concurs with the comment in the Israeli report that the operation should have withdrawn and reassessed its options when the resistance to the initial boarding from the speedboats occurred…

…The Panel is struck by the level of violence that took place during the take-over operation. Many witness statements describe indiscriminate shooting, including of injured, with some referring to shooting even after attempts had been made to surrender. By the IDF’s account, 308 live rounds…were discharged. Seventy-one fully armed naval commandoes were deployed during the take-over, which lasted for over 45 minutes.(p.53 ff.)

In the following passage, the report documents what can only be described by a reasonable observer as assassinations, noting that Israel at no point provided a satisfactory explanation as to how or why these people were killed in the manner that they were:

Seven of the nine persons killed received multiple gunshot wounds to critical regions of the body…

Five of those killed had bullet wounds indicating they had been shot from behind: Cengiz Akyüz, Çetin Topçuoğlu, Necdet Yıldırım, Furkan Doğan and İbrahim Bilgen. This last group included three with bullet wounds to the back of the head: Cengiz Akyüz, Çetin Topçuoğlu and Furkan Doğan. İbrahim Bilgen was killed by a shot to the right temple.

Two people were killed by a single bullet wound: Cevdet Kılıçlar was killed by a single shot between the eyes; and Cengiz Songür was killed by a shot to the base of the throat.

At least one of those killed, Furkan Doğan, was shot at extremely close range. Mr. Doğan sustained wounds to the face, back of the skull, back and left leg. That suggests he may already have been lying wounded when the fatal shot was delivered, as suggested by witness accounts to that effect.

No evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons. Video footage shows one passenger holding only an open fire hose being killed by a single shot to the head or throat fired from a speedboat

Tell me honestly, do you think Israel even wants to know which of its commandos killed which of these passengers? Do you think they even tried to investigate this? And if they didn’t, how can they claim to have done a proper, thorough and independent investigation?

Upon completing this Report the main conclusion that I had is that the international human rights community needs to protest its contents by planning more Gaza flotillas until either Israel relents on its cruel policy or the world forces Israel to relent. There can be only one answer to nonsense like this:

There is no right within those rules to breach a lawful blockade as a right of protest. (p.71)

The response must be: yes, there is such a right and if you deny it to us we will take it anyway. As some of the truly great human rights heroes have said, if you don’t stake out your rights then someone will take them away from to you.

It’s beginning to appear that virtually every statement, every tweet, every Facebook Wall posting from the Israeli government about the Flotilla is either steeped in fraud or simply wrong.  Earlier today, I posted about what Dena Shunra has aptly called an IDF blood libel against the Flotilla activists, who are claimed to be preparing to “shed blood” of IDF soldiers who attempt to stop them.  Allegedly, they’re also bringing “sulfur” aboard the boats in order to attack the IDF in some unspecified way.

Omer Gershon, Israeli actor and hoaxster aka 'Marc Pax'

The latest piece of hoaxterism is a video which Max Blumenthal, Benjamin Doherty and Ali Abunimah have proven to be a fake.  It features an alleged gay man named “Marc Pax,” claiming that he was refused a place on the Flotilla because of his sexual preference.  Robert Mackey of the Lede now confirms that the video was a fraud and that three Israeli government officials tweeted about the video at virtually the same time and almost immediately after it was uploaded to the web.  The character in the video is in reality, Omer Gershon, an Israeli actor and marketer who has made at least one commercial with a director named Elad Magdasi.  You take one look at Gershon’s Groucho-like eyebrows and eyeglasses and you know this guy is a fake.  Mackey notes that Magdasi’s YouTube channel prominently flacks videos produced by…are you ready?  Stand With Us.  Now I wonder whether Magdasi himself has made videos for SWU before?

Would SWU fund such nonsense?  Of course not.  They’re far too classy a group to do that.  In truth, there are any number of equally scuzzy pro-Israel advocacy groups with the means and the will to produce this video, among them LATMA or Clarion Fund.  But the SWU connection is most intriguing.

UPDATE: Everything you’ll read about government denials of involvement below was also apparently a lie as no less than the prime minister’s office itself conceded, in effect, that the government was involved in production and dissemination of the video:

The premier’s office in response did not deny that that the government was involved in the video’s production, and admitted that government bodies had distributed the link.

“Various bodies dealing with international media campaigns continuously monitor and distribute internet content when they recognize content that can serve Israel’s campaigns,” the prime minister’s office said in a statement.

What this tells you is that the Israeli government doesn’t really give a crap whether they’re exposed or not.  They didn’t even try to be subtle.  It also indicates the utter cynicism of the government toward the international community and world media.  The ends, for Bibi & Co., are so much more important than the means.  Protecting Israel (as they see it) entitles them to lie and cheat, all in the name of the State.

* *

When the Israeli government was found to have its hand in the fake cookie jar it reacted with its best Claude Rains-expression of SHOCK, I say shock, that anyone could be so low as to create such a video.  It complained loudly: “We were duped.”  Yeah, I bet you were.  About as duped as the proverbial art forger discovered to have sold a fake Vermeer for millions.

It sternly reprimanded at least one its staff who tweeted about the video.  Though my impression is that it reprimanded him for being discovered, rather than for the fake that he acted on behalf of Israel in promoting the video:

“Mr. Seemann is a 25-year-old who is interning in our office. His tweet was a mistake on his part. It was done without authorization and without approval. His mistake has been pointed out to him.”

I’ll bet it was done without authorization or approval.  If you consider that the MFA’s Danny Ayalon has declared the Flotilla to be Israel’s Public Enemy #1 and that his sworn mission is to “delegitimize” it by any means necessary, the claim rings hollow.

Yigal Palmor, the MFA’s chief PR flack has dropped the claim that the video is truthful and now calls it a “mockumentary,” as if to say: “We were fooling you all along and did it on purpose.”  What the purpose might be is anybody’s guess.

UPDATE I: It’s starting to feel like everyone is coming around the the peace activists’ way of seeing the Gaza siege.  Even Allison Rowen Taylor supports the Gaza Flotilla!  Well, OK she only gave 1 cent.  But every little bit counts, Allison, and we appreciate your support.  It just shows you that even the misguided can find the true path and that teshuva is a godly thing.  Next thing you know the Flotilla’ll be receiving gifts from the Danny Boys, Dan Gordis and Dan Pipes.  Then you’ll really be able to say the leopard’s changed his spots!

There remain a few Israelis though who still are sour pusses as far as the Flotilla is concerned.  Those brave hearty souls of the Mossad for example.  They’ve been hard at work sabotaging the ships that they can.  It appears likely they broke the propeller shaft of one of the Greek boats.  H/t Paul Woodward.

Related articles

• Mossad saboteurs attack Gaza flotilla? (warincontext.org)

Whenever Israel gets itself into serious hot water and kills a lot of people and looks really bad in the process, if it can, the MFA and the rest of the hasbara brigade goes into overdrive, dusts off all the possible avenues of defense they can find.  Lately, with the Gaza flotilla shortly to embark on its attempt to break the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza, and with memories fresh in the world’s mind of the nine dead bodies shot at point blank range by Israeli naval commandos, hasbarists are turning to an obscure international treaty to defend the indefensible: the collective punishment of 1.5 million Gazans by Israel’s armed forces.

I’m so tired to hearing these chirping hasbarists crickets all singing the same song (I must’ve had six different commenters in the past year who each separately raised San Remo as justification for the blockade) that I wanted to thank a commenter who pointed me to a rebuttal of the San Remo argument.  It was written by a former British ambassador, Craig Murray.  And before you question his credentials, let’s present them:

…Former Head of the Maritime Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He negotiated the UK’s current maritime boundaries with Ireland, Denmark (Faeroes), Belgium and France, and boundaries of the Channel Islands, Turks and Caicos and British Virgin Islands. He was alternate Head of the UK Delegation to the UN Preparatory Commission on the Law of the Sea. He was Head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, enforcing sanctions on Iraq, and directly responsible for clearance of Royal Navy boarding operations in the Persian Gulf.

I quote Ambassador Murray in full (italics are mine):

Why San Remo Does Not Apply

Every comments thread on every internet site on the world which has discussed the Israeli naval murders, has been inundated by organised ZIonist commenters stating that the Israeli action was legal under the San Remo Manual of International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea.

They ignore those parts of San Remo that specifically state that it is illegal to enforce a general blockade on an entire population. But even apart from that, San Remo simply does not apply.

The manual relates specifically to legal practice in time of war. With whom is Israel at war?

There is no war.

Israeli apologists have gone on to say they are in a state of armed conflict with Gaza.

Really? In that case, why do we continually hear Israeli complaints about rockets fired from Gaza into Israel? If it is the formal Israeli position that it is in a state of armed conflict with Gaza, then Gaza has every right to attack Israel with rockets.

But in fact, plainly to the whole world, the nature and frequency of Israeli complaints about rocket attacks gives evidence that Israel does not in fact believe that a situation of armed conflict exists.

Secondly, if Israel wishes to claim it is in a state of armed conflict with Gaza, then it must treat all of its Gazan prisoners as prisoners of war entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. If you are in a formal state of armed conflict, you cannot categorise your opponents as terrorists.

But again, it is plain for the world to see from its treatment and description of Gazan prisoners that it does not consider itself to be in a formal position of armed conflict.

Israel is seeking to pick and choose which bits of law applicable to armed conflict it applies, by accepting or not accepting it is in armed conflcit depending on the expediency of the moment.

I have consistently denounced Hamas rocket attacks into Israel. I have categorised them as terrorism. If Israel wishes now to declare it is in armed conflcit with Gaza, I withdraw my opposition and indeed would urge Hamas to step up such attacks to the maximum.

Does Israel really wish to justify its latest action by declaring it is at war with Gaza? That is what the invocation of San Remo amounts to.

So please no more references to San Remo.  It’s a red herring argument.

Free Gaza, support the flotilla, end the Israeli siege

Remember that old screed attacking Rush Limbaugh: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell them? Well, IDF Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai seems to have studied the book and learned all its lessons down cold.  He threatened mayhem on the unarmed activists who are about to depart on the Gaza flotilla boats for Occupied Palestine.  But what was most mendacious in his remarks was this:

“There is an unequivocal directive from the government to enforce the naval blockade that is recognized by international law, and we will not allow it to be broken.”

Just who recognizes the legality of Israel’s siege of Gaza’s 1.5 million civilians?  Why, the IDF of course.  But since when is the IDF or any similar Israeli source the sole arbiter of international law?  Are there any other non-hasbarist legal analysts who defend the Israeli siege as legal under international law?  Besides Alan Dershowitz, of course.  I haven’t heard any.

So let’s be very clear: this tin-pot general has just threatened unarmed civilians with the use of any and all means necessary to subdue them.  This is hooliganism and brutishness.  And Israel can surely be proud it has such a general in its midst.  One who isn’t afraid to shoot men and women if necessary to uphold the nation’s honor.

Israel and most military bodies like to give names to their exercises.  I’ve got one for the upcoming flotilla interdiction.  And for this, we’ll have to turn Meir Kahane’s “Never Again” slogan on its head.  My suggestion: “Mavi Marmara–Again.”  Or alternatively, we could use a version of the slogan that Auschwitz survivor Malvina Schwartz saw scrawled on a wall in her Hungarian hometown after she came back from the camps: “This time–we’ll finish the job.”

Ethan Bronner interprets the bellicosity of Brig. Gen. Mordechai this way:

The statements seemed part of a heightened effort to stop another flotilla and to pre-emptively explain Israel’s position if violence ensues.

I’d make one small change in that sentence: “when violence ensues.”  Because the IDF of course controls whether there will be murder and mayhem, just as it did a year ago on the Mavi Marmara, when it slaughtered nine men with ‘kill shots’ at point-blank range.

And hey, we can’t get away with writing about a Bronner piece without noting his bias in favor of Israel:

Israel…said that a year ago the ship was dominated by extremists who created the confrontations that resulted in the deaths.

“Israel said?”  What about what everyone else in the world said, which directly contradicts this?  And what about an acknowledgement that whatever the passengers did, they did not, could not provoke nine murders.  That was solely the doing of the IDF naval commandos.  Not a word on this from Good Soldier Bronner (oh, that’s right, it’s his son who’s in the IDF).

And how about a little more hasbara from the Times IDF (er, Israel) bureau chief:

Israel began a naval blockade two and a half years ago when it invaded Gaza to stop Palestinian militants from firing rockets into Israel.

Say what?  First this is erroneous.  There was a full Israeli blockade of Gaza, including naval, beginning in 2006, not 2009.  Second, the reasons Israel says it’s doing something are often not the real reasons it’s doing it.  In this case, the blockade, if this was the purpose, never stopped a single rocket from being fired.  Rather, Israel wished to punish Gazans for voting for Hamas to be their leader and to punish Hamas for its pre-emptive coup which kicked Fatah out of the enclave in 2006.  That’s the real reason there is an Israeli siege.  One which, contrary to the word of an Israeli hack general, is illegal under international law.

How about this bit of breathless Bronnerism:

Today Gaza has plenty of goods available…

For God’s sake, what does it mean that there are “plenty of goods available” if there are no jobs with which people can earn money to buy them?  This is the heartlessness of Ethan Bronner.  Besides, most of those goods didn’t come to Gaza through Israeli crossings which allow a trickle to flow in.  Rather they’re smuggled in via Egypt.  No thanks to Israel.

Bronner gets yet another point wrong in this passage:

The government says its goal is to prevent Hamas from importing weapons by sea. In March, Israel stopped a vessel packed with weapons that it says were Gaza-bound.

No,  the vessel wasn’t bound for Gaza.  It was actually taken on the high seas on its way to Egypt.  It’s possible the weapons were intended for Gaza, but that ship wasn’t bringing them there.

Bronner continues his whitewash of the Mavi Marmara massacre thus:

This year an Israeli commission concluded that the blockade conformed with international law, as did Israel’s raid on the Mavi Marmara in international waters. The panel included two foreign legal experts who agreed with the conclusions.

First, Bronner neglects to mention the clear bias of the panel, the fact that it was not independent, did not have subpoena power, and had a very limited mandated.  Not to mention that it’s nearly senile 89-year-old chairman died a few weeks into deliberations.  Second, the two foreign “experts” were neither experts nor unbiased.  David Trimble is not an expert on international law, but rather a Northern Ireland pro-Israel politician.  The other expert was a Canadian military judge advocate whose expertise on international law was never promoted by the Israelis.

Enough badgering poor old ‘Eitan’ Bronner.  Let’s go back to the IDF military spokesperson who’s always good for a cynical laugh:

He said that many of those planning to take part in the flotilla were peace activists, but that they were naïve because “extremists will set the tone” if Israeli commandos board the ships.

Yes, indeed.  The tone will be set by extremists like 86 year-old Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein; or non-violent human rights activist Medea Benjamin; or by Yonatan Shapira, the peace activist who refused to bomb Palestinians in the West Bank with his IDF Black Hawk helicopter.  These are the caliber of man-eating extremists those commandos will be facing.  Scary.  They better take along an extra copy of Gandhi’s biography in order to do battle with them.

To support the sacred work of the Gaza flotilla and tell the IDF you won’t support vigilantism, you may contribute to the Canadian boat, Tahrir, which will include Tikun Olam reader Mary Hughes Thompson among its passengers.  Godspeed, Mary and all the others.  Come back safe.

UNRWA plays vital role in stabilizing Gaza humanitarian crisis

A new UNRWA report finds that Gaza, despite the so-called “easing” of Israel’s blockade, faces the highest unemployment in the world.  Almost half of all eligible workers cannot find a job.  By most accounts, the rate hovers at about the same level as the last report in 2009.  The number of poor Gazans applying for UN relief aid has increased from 100,000 to 300,000 in that time.  The only bright spot in the employment picture is the public sector, where Hamas has increased the number of jobs to 25,000.  Fatah also pays PA workers in Gaza not to work (makes sense, right?) to protest Hamas’ takeover of the enclave following Fatah’s preempted coup.  Though Gaza’s economy has improved this is largely through the increase in Hamas-sponsored jobs.  The private sector continues to barely exist.

I’m waiting for the hasbara crowd to break out pictures of that one Gaza seaside resort to show there’s no hunger in Gaza, that everyone lives in the lap of luxury.  Oh wait, they’ve already done it–how helpful of them!  Isn’t it nice when you’re an Israeli with a nice job, nice flat in Tel Aviv or Kiryat Arba, nice car, and you can look down on Gazans who have none of what you do, and call them liars and sponges and grifters?

I’m most tickled by the Israeli claim that the unemployment figures are skewed because they include those who’ve been out of work so long they’ve stopped trying to find a job.  According to Israel, these individuals, who’ve lost all hope thanks to the splendid job Israel’s done at turning the place into an outdoor prison, don’t count.  But does it really make a difference whether the rate’s 46% or 37%??  Only for an Israeli Siege Bureaucrat.

Israel also claims the report is politically motivated, no doubt due to the Gaza flotilla about to set sail to once again attempt to break Israel’s blockade.  If Israel lifted the siege, unemployment would drastically fall, the humanitarian crisis would end, the flotillas would stop coming and Israel would no longer face this PR disaster.  Why blame the UN for a mess all of Israel’s making?

The flotilla will continue to point out the lunacy of the blockade.  Now that Egypt has essentially lifted its own siege, what purpose does Israel’s serve?  Hamas has not been vanquished.  Only ordinary Gazans have suffered.

Palestinian man waits for Rafah border crossing to open (Eyad Baba/AP)

A cornerstone of U.S.-Israel policy over the past five years has just partially dissolved with Egypt’s reopening today of the Rafah border crossing.  This will allow passenger traffic (but not goods) to cross every day with little hindrance (though men from 18-40 will have to undergo a special security screening).  It leaves Israel to maintain its siege on its own border with Gaza.  Israel currently maintains the only border crossing that allows goods to cross.  But Egypt is considering removing even this restriction.  When it does (as I presume it will if there are no major problems with the Rafah opening), then the Israeli siege will be dead.  And yet another punitive U.S.-Israeli policy toward the Palestinians will have bitten the dust and shown itself to have served no useful purpose.

Ethan Bronner, as usual acting as the stenographer for the Israeli government and conveying the wishful thinking of its policy “experts,” claims the lifting of the Egyptian siege will actually help Israeli policy goals.  It supposedly will place a greater burden on Egypt to police its borders and, by extension, Hamas.  But the most laughable claim by the Israelis is that lifting the siege will actually release international pressure on Israel, since there presumably would no longer be any humanitarian crisis to make the world scream bloody murder.  What this neglects though, is that Egypt will likely shortly allow everything to enter Gaza, not just people.  And when that happens, Israel will look stupid if it maintains a blockade.  It’s reminds me of the extraordinary lengths to which the French went to build the Maginot Line, which they believed made them impregnable to German attack.  There was only one problem: when the Germans attacked, they went around it and conquered France in record time.  Maintaining a siege on one border when the other is completely open looks not only mean-spirited and ineffectual, but downright dumb.  Israel doesn’t like to be seen by the world as dumb.  So I predict even the Israeli siege will be drastically modified in six months or less.

Returning to Hamas, as Tony Karon so aptly writes at his Time Magazine blog, there is only one way to deal with it: engage.  If there is ever to be real peace between Israelis and Palestinians it will have to receive at least a tacit blessing from Hamas.  Laying siege to Gaza was a useless, wasted policy.  It secured nothing, proved nothing.  We (that is, the U.S., I can’t speak for Israel) should try something else.  Something more positive.  If we don’t, we will have only ourselves to blame and the corpses of hundreds or thousands more dead laid at our doorstep until we look at things more pragmatically and less ideologically.

Related articles

• Egypt to open Rafah crossing permanently (warincontext.org)

Apologies to all you youngsters out there who don’t remember the hilarious comedy spoof of the 1970s starring Alan Arkin and an amazing cast, The Russians are Coming! The Russian are Coming!  The plot revolved around a Russian submarine which runs aground on the New England coast, thus throwing the populace into a hysterical uproar, believing that the arrival of the sub presaged a Russian invasion of America.

Druze protesters breach the Israeli border

What I wanted to get at in the reference to the movie though is the vast divide between the average Israeli Jewish response to the border violation and the response of foreigners.  For Israelis, these were looming hordes come to rape and pillage Israel.  They had to be stopped by any means necessary including lethal violence.  They had to be taught a lesson not to tinker with Israel lest they repeat these theatrics.

For the average foreign observer, the Israeli response was typically bellicose, aggressive and brutal.  It showed the obtuseness of Israel both to the injustices it has perpetrated and to the perception of its behavior on the world stage.  So in my film analogy, the Israelis were the hysterical New England residents believing their country was about the be overrun.

Returning to Nakba Day…what did Israel expect from its own counter-provocation?  The demonstrations will now take on a continuing life of their own.  The IDF responded in precisely the way the organizers of this protest would’ve expected.  And now that Israel has drawn blood, the protesters have been in effect dared to take up the challenge.  If the IDF had merely treated the border violations as a civil matter and turned the protesters away in a non-lethal manner, the protests would’ve likely petered out or taken a different form.

But now, Israel has thrown down the gauntlet.  And one thing Israel may find is that the Arab world, in the aftermath of the democratic revolutions which convulsed Arab capitals from Tunis to Damascus, is in no mood to back down in the face of bullies.  Israel may have the most powerful army in the Middle East, but what can it do against the possibility of tens of thousands or protesters piercing its borders?  Can it afford to murder hundreds as has happened in Syria?  Does it have enough political capital left in the international community to withstand the universal condemnation this would arouse?  Not to mention calls for international criminal prosecution?  Does Bibi think Barack will cheer him on as Bush did when Israel slaughtered over 1,000 Lebanese civilians in 2006?

Similarly, when Israel mowed down nine Turkish pro-Palestinian activists on the Mavi Marmara, it provoked a series of such flotillas chugging to Gaza.  Now, the Turkish foreign minister has warned Israel not to toy with Turkey by considering another military attack on a Turkish convoy planning to set sail for Gaza in June.  This could set up some sort of armed confrontation between the two former allies.  Isn’t it interesting how quickly relations and alliances shift in the Middle East?

I predict Bibi will fold in the face of the Turkish threat and these ships will reach Gaza.  Israel tends to back down when it realizes its opponent is as strong as it is.  Israel’s army and political leadership prefers to bully states and entities with weak military forces like Palestine, Syria and Lebanon.  That’s why there hasn’t been an armed confrontation with Jordan since 1967.  And conversely, it’s why it attacked the Mavi Marmara and forcibly prevents other unarmed ships from breaching the Gaza siege.  If any of these ships had a military escort, the situation would be different.

With the UN General Assembly vote looming in September, Palestinian activists will test Israel to determine how it will react to such protests.  If Israel continues to overreact and kills more activists and gets into a pissing match with Turkey, it will strengthen the movement for statehood.  This will also take the wind out of the sails of the Obama administration in its effort to carry water for Israel by vetoing the resolution in the Security Council if it makes its way there.