Doc's Talk: UN must investigate Turkey

Saturday, June 05, 2010

UN must investigate Turkey

Turkey appears to be involved in criminal activities in respect to Gaza flotilla

Zvi Mazel
YNET

The so-called “peace flotilla“ episode raises many questions, and most of them have to do with the role of Turkey. After all Israel behaved from beginning to end with the utmost transparency. But nobody knows exactly what went on in Turkey – how the operation was planned and what part the Turkish government played in its implementation. Israel’s position regarding Gaza is clear. The blockade was set up following the bloody takeover of the Gaza Strip by Hamas and the subsequent indiscriminate firing of thousands of rockets on the towns of Southern Israel for eight long years; the smuggling of weapons, missiles and explosives into the Strip. The blockade is intended to cut off arms supplies to a hostile Hamas regime which keeps on declaring its intention to destroy Israel in accordance to its covenant.

Imposing a maritime blockade is a recognized and legitimate measure under international law. The blockading country has the right to stop vessels approaching the blockaded area to check they are not carrying weapons even when they are still in international waters, as long as it has been made clear that the vessels intend to violate the blockade. This is well known – both by governments and by newspapers reporting on Israel and on Gaza.

The latest incident began several months ago. IHH, a militant Turkish organization, announced its intention, together with a number of Islamic groups and far Left European organizations in the so-called “free Gaza movement”, to send several vessels carrying “humanitarian supplies” to breach the blockade and embarrass Israel.

Israel immediately contacted the Turkish government, since the operation was planned from that country, to direct the ships to the Israeli port of Ashdod where the “humanitarian supplies” could be unloaded and transferred to Gaza. It reminded the Turks of the fact that dozens and sometimes hundreds of trucks cross daily from Israel into Gaza carrying essential supplies and medicine. Foreign visitors to Gaza have been able to see by themselves that the shelves are well stocked. Turkey refused to act.

Israel also contacted several other countries involved since ships carrying their flag were about to take part in the flotilla. Cyprus alone accepted to act. All involved in the flotilla repeated that theirs was a peaceful enterprise and that they would only offer passive resistance.

Israel then announced that it would act according to its official policy. The international community was thus well aware of the blockade’s existence and of the reasons for it. It was also aware of the fact that Israel intended to stop the ships and divert them to Ashdod. On Monday, when Israeli warships met the flotilla, a forceful warning was issued to the skippers of the vessels and they were told to change course for Ashdod. That was met with a resounding “Go back to Auschwitz” and other unprintable terms.

The largest vessel in the convoy was the “Marmara”, a Turkish ship which had sailed from Turkey with some 600 people on board. When Israeli soldiers reached its deck, they were met not with peaceful protest but by knives, iron bars and guns wielded by dozens of Turkish terrorists. Dozens of videos of the incident leave no room for doubt. There was a deliberate attempt to lynch the soldiers. They had no choice but to defend themselves.

This they did with a restraint which does them credit. Other armies might have reacted more strongly. It must be noted that according to reports in the Turkish press, some terrorists had declared before setting out that they intended to become “martyrs”, that is, suicide bombers. Two of them – who did find their death on the Marmara – even filmed a video clip according the well known tradition of Islamist extremists. The mother of one of them admitted it freely on Turkish television.

It is therefore not clear what a commission of enquiry would have to investigate regarding Israel. There may be a need for an internal investigation into the way the operation was planned and carried out, but that is an Israeli issue. Nothing Israel did violated international law.

Many questions unanswered

Let us now turn to Turkey. There is indeed an urgent need to set up an international commission of inquiry under the auspices of the United Nations to determine what exactly the role of Turkey was in planning and facilitating the event. IHH is an extremist Islamist organization created in 1992; according to the CIA it is a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda and to Hamas which has been involved in several terror attacks. This is confirmed by Jean Louis Bruguiere, a former French investigative judge and an antiterrorism expert at the Council of Europe, the Commission of the European Union and the United Nations (UNODC).

During a search carried out in 1997 in the movement’s headquarters in Turkey, munitions and incriminating documents were found. In recent years, IHH has reinforced its links to Hamas; it has financed the rebuilding of the port of Gaza and has bought two ships – including the “Marmara” to fight the blockade. It was obvious that what the organization had in mind was not a humanitarian mission but the breaking of the blockade.

The international commission of inquiry will therefore have to investigate why Turkey let the organization operate openly on its soil and why it did not arrest its leaders. It will have to check the nature of the relationship between the Turkish government and IHH, especially while that organization was reinforcing its links with Hamas. It will have to clarify what Turkey did to assist IHH in planning and carrying out the operation in recent months.

Also to be scrutinized is the way IHH secured its funding. Was the Turkish government one of the contributors? Another question is how the Turkish government let armed trained terrorists go unchecked on board the “Marmara” with thousands of dollars in their pockets. It appears that the Turkish government was involved in criminal activities in violation not only of international law but also of Turkish law. A thorough investigation is needed and only the UN can carry it out.

Then, and only then, will the world be fully aware of the role played by Turkey. But it will not be enough. There were six ships in the flotilla, and many “peace activists” from other countries. It will be the task of the commission to determine the nature of the links between the “Free Gaza movement” and the leftist organizations which participated and the IHH terror organization. National and international laws may have been violated. There were also several elected representatives to national parliament in the flotilla, including an Arab member of the Israeli Knesset. To what extent, if any, did they cooperate with a known terrorist organization?

Some people reading this will probably shrug and think “Dream on! After all Turkey is a regional power with 80 million citizens, a member of NATO, a strategic ally of the United States. It will not react kindly to any attempt to investigate what it did. Much better to blame Israel as always.” Perhaps. But stifling the truth and fostering lies comes at a price.

The writer, a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, is Israel’s former ambassador to Romania, Egypt and Sweden

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk